Whether a person falls under one's own farmland for at least eight years;

The Plaintiff operates a considerable scale of a construction company, and in each of the instant land exceeding approximately 6.67 km in the Plaintiff’s place of residence and approximately 6.29 km in approximately 10,000 square meters located in a place less than 6.29 km in the Plaintiff’s company, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff directly performed at least 1/2 of the farming work every year as a

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act: Reduction or exemption of transfer income tax for self-farmland

Cheongju District Court 2015Guhap10518 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Capital Gains Tax

○ ○

○○ Head of tax office

July 16, 2015

August 13, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 283,982,480 against Plaintiff on June 2, 2014 is revoked.

(c)

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 19, 195, the Plaintiff acquired 3,410 square meters in ○○-dong 5, 00 square meters in ○○-dong, 00, 5-1 4,405 square meters in 5-1, and 3-1 2,90 square meters in 3-1 square meters in 2,99. Since then, the said 3-1 land was combined with the said 5 land, and the combined 0-5 land was divided into 9 lots in 0,000 square meters in 662 square meters in 0,000,000,0000,000,000,000 square meters in 2,000 square meters in 0

B. On June 12, 2013, the Plaintiff sold the said ○-1 land to AA in KRW 100 million. On July 23, 2013, the Plaintiff sold the said ○○-dong 5-1 land to BB Co., Ltd. in KRW 1.639,50,000,000. On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant land to AA and BB Co., Ltd.

C. On December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return of capital gains tax on the Defendant, deeming that the transfer of each of the instant lands constitutes an exemption from capital gains tax on self-employed farmland pursuant to Article 69(1) 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. 25211, Feb. 21, 2014).

D. On June 2, 2014, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 283,982,480 to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate each of the instant land (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant on June 16, 2014, but the said application was dismissed on July 14, 2014, and again filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on July 28, 2014, but the said claim was also dismissed on December 29, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including the number of each branch; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff was a representative of a construction company, but more than ordinary employees had been employed, so the Plaintiff could directly cultivate each of the instant lands located in a place that is not far away from the Plaintiff’s house and company; the Plaintiff was directly in charge of overall management and supervision when receiving assistance from the neighboring people; the Plaintiff was registered in the farmland ledger since 1995 and was recognized as a farmer and was registered as eligible for direct payments for preserving rice income, etc., and the Plaintiff’s wife was unable to cultivate each of the instant lands on behalf of the Plaintiff when considering his residence, occupation, health conditions, etc. Meanwhile, considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s wife was unable to cultivate the instant lands, and that the neighboring residents of each of the instant lands were confirming the Plaintiff’s self-reliance, it is apparent that the Plaintiff was directly cultivated more than 1/2 of the farming work of each of the instant lands for more than 8 years, and thus, the disposition of this case by the Plaintiff was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring any special circumstance, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without any reasonable reason. In particular, the strict interpretation of the provisions that clearly indicate preferential provisions among the requirements for reduction and exemption accords with the principle of fair taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11372, Aug. 20, 2009). Furthermore, the burden of proving that the said provision constitutes the reduction and exemption of capital gains tax is the Plaintiff, who is a person liable to pay capital gains tax.

2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant land was 10 years old and 10 years old and 20 years old and 20 years old and 3 years old and 2, and the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant land was 10 years old and 5 years old and 10 years old and 6 years old and 27 years old and 3 years old and 10, old and 27 years old and 10, old and 27 years old and 10, old and 27 years old and 10, old and 10, old and 10, old and 27, old and 200, old and 20, old and 27, old and 20, old and 20, old and 20, old and 20, old and 27, old and 20, old and 20, old and 20.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.