early 208 Heavy2581 ( October 07, 2008)

Whether it has been done directly in applying capital gains tax reduction or exemption pursuant to farmland substitute land;

Since farmland is far away from 20 km, it is deemed not easy to cultivate the farmland in this case at that time, there is no objective data to deem that the Plaintiff cultivated the farmland in this case by itself, such as the ownership of agricultural machinery, the status of ownership of agricultural products, and the details of shipment of agricultural products.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 70 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax on Substitute Land for Farmland)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing capital gains tax of KRW 31,786,840 for the portion belonging to the year 2006, as the Plaintiff on January 3, 2008 (the date of January 9, 2008) is revoked (the date of January 3, 2008).

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On December 1, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired and owned ○○○○ ○○○ ○○ ○○○ 695-2 Spot 1,312 square meters (hereinafter “the instant farmland”). On July 19, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred the farmland to others, and on August 1, 2006, acquired ○○ ○ 796 m2,445 square meters.

(b) On September 29, 2006, the plaintiff filed a return on income following the transfer of farmland in this case as non-taxable income accrued as a substitute for farmland.

C. Accordingly, on January 3, 2008, the Defendant considered that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the farmland of this case for not less than three years, and rendered the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax of 31,786,840 won on the Plaintiff in 2006.

(d)The plaintiff, on July 7, 2008, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 7, 2008, but, on the other hand, filed an appeal;

10.7. The dismissal was made.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 1-1, 2-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

(a)the master of the plaintiff;

Since 2002, the Plaintiff was directly cultivated on the farmland in the case, and was not directly cultivated on the farmland in 2003. However, since 2004, it was directly cultivated on the farmland in the case, it constitutes a case where 3 years or more have been directly cultivated on the farmland in the case.

(b) relevant legislation;

Article 70 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax on Substitute Land for Farmland)

C. Determination

(1) According to the relevant laws and regulations, in order to be exempted from taxation as substitute land for farmland, the former farmland should be cultivated directly at the seat of the previous farmland for more than three years, and the term "direct cultivation" in this period includes not only the case in which one cultivates himself/herself but also the case in which another person is employed and cultivated under his/her responsibility and calculation. However, it does not include the case in which another person is allowed to cultivate the land by way of consignment management, cultivation by proxy, lease or loan for use, etc., but it does not include the case in which one asserts it.

(2) From 202 to July 2006, the Plaintiff’s land was not cultivated under his responsibility and account for not less than 3 years (except for 2003 years) and there were some of Gap evidence Nos. 10-1, Eul evidence No. 5-1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 6-1, Gap evidence No. 7-1, 9-1, and 2. The Plaintiff’s first prepared farmland No. 2003, but it appears that the Plaintiff did not own the farmland of this case from 000 to 2006. The Plaintiff appears to have purchased the farmland of this case from 2000 to 300, after considering the following facts: the Plaintiff’s first prepared farmland No. 1, 2000 to 200, 300, 400, 205, 205, 300, 300, 40, 207, 204, 305, 201.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have voluntarily improved the farmland of this case for more than three years. Accordingly, the income accrued from the transfer of the land of this case does not fall under the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.