Daejeon District Court2013Gudan169 (2014.02.07)

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had cultivated directly for not less than 8 years, such as cultivating more than 1/2 of the farming work required in the instant land with his own labor.

direct cultivation means that a resident engages in the cultivation of the crops or the growing of perennial plants on his own land at all times, or cultivating or cultivating 1/2 or more of the farming works with his own labor, and the meaning of a regular operator and his own labor in this context shall be interpreted in accordance with the language and text, and the fact of his own land which is the requirement for tax abatement or exemption under the above provision shall be proved by the claimant.

2014Nu10125 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

Head of Hongsung Tax Office

Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Gudan1169 Decided February 7, 2014

May 22, 2014

June 12, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax belonging to ○○○○ on May 14, 2012 against the plaintiff on May 14, 2012.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After acquiring the instant land, on March 198, the Plaintiff purchased and planted ○○ tree tree, such as big tree, sea wave, bank tree, etc. from the BB forestry cooperative, and had planted, continuously managing, and cultivated landscape trees, such as trees transplanted from the farmland cultivated by the Plaintiff’s husband, the trees donated by the managementCC, and trees purchased from others. At the time of transferring the instant land, various landscape trees, such as low wind trees, etc., were planted on the instant land. At the time of transferring the instant land, at the time of growing the landscape trees, the Plaintiff did not recognize the transfer income tax on the income accruing from the transfer of the instant land, even though the transfer of the instant land should be reduced or exempted, it was unlawful for the instant disposition that did not recognize it.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "The tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the transfer income tax shall be reduced or exempted for the income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree among the land which is subject to the taxation of agricultural income tax, and Article 66(13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24368, Feb. 15, 2013) provides that "Direct farming" means that a resident is engaged in cultivating or cultivating crops or perennial plants on his/her own land at all times or is engaged in cultivating or cultivating more than half of the farming work with his/her own labor." The meaning of "a regular work" and "self's labor force" should be interpreted in accordance with the language and text (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1970, Dec. 27, 2012).

2) In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings at the testimony of the first instance court witness KimD, E, MaF, Kim GGG, and Cho Jae-gu witness of the first instance court, the Plaintiff submitted a receipt (Evidence A 2) claiming that he purchased approximately approximately KRW 00-00 malone tree malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone mal, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12 through 15, and Eul's malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone malone 2.

Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of each of the above evidence, the plaintiff from May 28, 1991.

From August 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011, the receipt of evidence No. 2 of the record that the Plaintiff purchased small and medium construction machinery from August 1, 2010 to December 31, 201 is not written with the personal information of the purchaser. ③ The letter of confirmation of the head of ○○○○○, the location of the instant land, was signed and sealed by the first instance court to the effect that the Plaintiff’s management act was not confirmed, ④ the Plaintiff’s testimony that the Plaintiff did not use the land in the name of 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00.

In full view of the aforementioned legal principles, each of the above facts and circumstances, etc., the instant land

Although a certain degree of trees have been planted and trees have been managed, it is not enough to recognize that the above recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff, who runs a construction-oriented company or a real estate rental business, has been engaged in the cultivation of crops in the instant land on a large scale, or cultivated not less than 1/2 of the necessary farming work with his own labor for not less than 8 years, by cultivating not less than 8 years the instant land. There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful since the income accrued from the transfer of the instant land is not subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.