Seoul Administrative Court 2014Gudan53400 ( August 21, 2015)

Whether farmland falls under self-sufficient farmland for at least eight years;

In order to meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax as it falls under self-sufficient farmland for not less than eight years, the case holding that the application of reduction or exemption is excluded due to lack of evidence to prove the fact that it has been self-sufficient for not less than eight years, although it has been self-sufficient from the time of acquisition of farmland to the time of transfer

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 95 of the Income Tax Act (Transfer Income Amount)

2015Nu5768 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○○

Head of Guro Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Gudan53400 decided August 21, 2015

February 17, 2016

March 16, 2016

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's imposition of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2013 against the plaintiff on August 9, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, except for the rejection of the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 36 through 57 (including serial numbers) which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff’s assertion as evidence submitted in addition to the following judgments concerning the matters for which the plaintiff asserts again in the trial of the trial, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the following points, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the instant farmland does not constitute a self-major farmland for at least eight years under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, is unlawful.

① Since 2000, the Plaintiff, who started to concentrate on agriculture, received a large amount of 00 million won or more earned income from the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 10 million each year, is due to the fact that the Plaintiff, even after removing losses from the Plaintiff’s business, had the obligation to pay wages from the honorary income level. This is because, after the Plaintiff, OO, the head of the Plaintiff, took office as the representative of BB, deposited money into the Plaintiff’s account and embezzled the company’s money by withdrawing it and using it.

② At present, the Plaintiff’s age cannot be said to be a lot of agricultural history, and the land that the Plaintiff leased to the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation or the Korea Agricultural Co., Ltd. was in office and directly cultivated by the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

① On the earned income earned by the Plaintiff since 200, the first instance court explained that the above earned income is in fact a interest income from a loan lent by the Plaintiff or a real estate rental income, and is merely a nominal income used for the Plaintiff’s tax liability payment, etc. However, in the first instance court, the Plaintiff asserted that the said income is the money paid as a preferential loan fee or the OO’s embezzlement funds. ② In the first instance court, the Plaintiff explained that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to congested or manage the entire farmland owned by the Plaintiff and that the Korea Rural Community Corporation concluded a lease contract with the Korea Rural Community Corporation (before the change of the name) to sublease the above land to the Korea Rural Community Corporation in order to utilize the rental farmland support policy, but there is insufficient evidence to support the Plaintiff’s assertion in each instance that the leased land was self-fluened by the Plaintiff while in office.

Therefore, the submitted evidence and the Plaintiff’s assertion alone cannot be recognized that the Plaintiff self-refluenced for not less than eight years after the acquisition of the farmland of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.