early 2011 Middle 0479 ( October 14, 2011)

It is difficult to recognize that transferred farmland has been self-sufficient for not less than eight years;

In light of the fact that he/she holds office as an executive officer, such as the representative director of a corporation, and receives high-amount benefits, that he/she had overseas business trips over several times during the farmland holding period, and that he/she failed to present objective evidence related to his/her progress, etc., it is difficult to recognize

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2011-gu 1168 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Capital Gains Tax

JAA

Head of the High Tax Office

March 19, 2012

April 16, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000 on June 3, 2010 against the Plaintiff on June 3, 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 27, 199, the Plaintiff acquired the same 00-0 square meters and 1063 square meters prior to the same 00-0 square meters and 1063 square meters prior to the same 00-0 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant farmland”), but transferred the same to KimD on July 22, 2008.

B. On August 31, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had self-defensed the farmland of this case for not less than eight years upon filing a preliminary return of tax base of capital gains tax to the Defendant on August 31, 2008, and applied Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “Special Taxation Act”) to apply the Restriction of Special Taxation

C. The auditor of the Seoul Regional Tax Office pointed out that the Plaintiff did not cultivate the instant farmland directly in light of the Plaintiff’s business details, etc. at the time of regular audit of the calendar, and that the Plaintiff should be exempted from capital gains tax reduction and exemption under Article 69 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Taxation, and that the instant farmland should be deemed as land for non-business under Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act, and thus, 60% of capital gains tax heavy tax rate shall be applied. Accordingly, on June 3, 2010, the Defendant notified the Defendant, who is the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s domicile, of the foregoing taxation data. Based on the notified taxation data, on June 3, 2010, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 for capital gains tax for

D. On January 12, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on January 12, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said request for a trial on April 14, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 9 through 11 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the Plaintiff directly cultivated the farmland of this case for not less than eight years, the transfer income tax should be reduced and exempted pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, but the disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307 of Feb. 4, 2009), in order for the instant farmland to be subject to the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, the Plaintiff shall directly cultivate, namely, engaging in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants, or cultivate or cultivate them with his own labor, while residing in the Si/Gun/Gu where the instant farmland is located for not less than eight years after the Plaintiff acquired the instant farmland, or in the Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto or within 20 km in a straight line from the said farmland, or from the said farmland, within a Si/Gun/Gu where the instant farmland is located.

(2) 살피건대, 갑 제8, 11호증, 갑 제13호증의1, 2의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 원고는 이 사건 농지의 보유기간 동안에 QQ 주식회사, 주식회사 RR의 각 대표이사로, 주식회사 SS, TT 주식회사의 각 전무이사로 재직한 점，② 특히 원고가 전무이사 로 재직한 주식회사 RR, SS 주식회사는 연간 매출액이 적지 아니할 뿐만 아니라 원고는 위 회사로부터 연간 평균 000원 이상의 급여를 수령한 점, ③ 원고가 위 회사의 임원이었던 관계로 시간을 자유롭게 사용할 수 있었으므로 이 사건 농지를 자경하는데 아무런 지장이 없었다는 원고의 주장은 위와 같은 급여 수령사실에 비추어 볼 때 경험칙상 쉽게 수긍하기 어려운 점，④ 더 나아가 원고는 이 사건 농지의 보유기간 동안 총 70회에 걸쳐 해외출장을 다녔던 점，⑤특히 원고가 SSS 주식회사의 전무로 근무하게 된 2007년부터 해외출장의 횟수가 크게 증가하여 2007년 16회, 2008년 17회의 해외출장을 다녔던 점，⑥ 원고가 이 사건 농지의 자경과 관련된 객관적인 근거자료를 제시하지 못하고 있는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때 갑 제1 내지 7호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재와 증인 정UU, 김VV의 각 증언만으로는 원고가 8년이상 이 사건 농지를 자경하였다고 인정하기에 부족하고(인근 주민의 진술이나 확인서등에 의하여 자경 사실을 증명하고자 하는 때에는 그 진술의 내용이 경작 방법, 작업의 내용과 주체, 작업의 빈도 등 자경 사실 자체를 명백히 뒷받침할 수 있는 구체적인 사실을 포함하고 있는 것이어야 하고 그러한 구체적인 사실의 적시가 없이 막연히 자경한 것이 맞다는 취지의 결론을 언급하는 정도만으로는 자경 사실을 뒷받침하는 독립 적인 증거가 된다고 보기 어렵다), 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion against this is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.