It is reasonable to view that a person directly cultivated a parcel of land, such as growing and growing trees on the land.

In light of the fact that a landscape business is carried on for the sale of trees while growing trees, that a landscape business is received for the sale of trees, that is registered as farmland on the farmland ledger, that is, ornamental trees are entered in the ornamental trees, and that a considerable amount of revenue has been reported while carrying on the landscape business, etc., it is reasonable to deem that a person directly cultivated trees by growing trees or growing them on land.

2012 old-gu 7779 Disposition of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

KoreaA

Head of Nowon Tax Office

December 5, 2012

January 16, 2013

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on August 11, 201 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff acquires the OOdong 000 6,856 m2 (hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case") in Yangju-si (hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case").

2. On 16.1/2, and on 31 December 1979, the land in this case was transferred to the Korea Land Corporation at KRW 000,00.

B. On April 24, 2009, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant the scheduled transfer income tax amount in relation to the transfer of the instant land, and deducted 000 won for 8 years or longer under the provisions of Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and reported and paid 00 won of the transfer income tax after deducting 00 won of the Do Do 3

C. However, on August 11, 2011, the Defendant denied the reduction or exemption of self-arable land under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the ground that the Plaintiff did not verify the fact that the land was self-sufficient, and corrected and notified KRW 000 of the transfer income tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, and Eul evidence 1 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff owned the instant land for at least 30 years and cultivated landscape trees, etc. for landscaping projects for at least eight years, and thus constitutes the requirements for reduction of self-arable farmland under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Therefore, the instant disposition otherwise reported is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) From October 31, 1979 to August 23, 2006, the Plaintiff resided in Yangju-si, O00, O00 and 000, Dobong-gu Seoul, OOdong, and sold dry field trees for landscaping while growing dry field crops mainly from the instant land.

(2) From October 2, 1995 to January 25, 2007, the Plaintiff engaged in a gardening business with the trade name of FF deafwon from 000 OOOdong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and operated a gardening business with the trade name from 0000 OOdong, 000 to 30 September 25, 2007, both weeks.

(3) The Plaintiff received KRW 000 as compensation for obstacles to the instant land from the Korea Land Corporation, and the compensation for trees out of the compensation amount is KRW 000.

(4) At the time of the transfer of the instant land, there were 40 species, such as single tree, 16, 490 species, and 16, 490 items, and 8 years averageed for receipt, among which the trees in the 4-5 year that were received were 46.7%, and the trees in the 6-10 year that were 30.5%, and the trees in the 11-20 year that were received were 21.1%.

(5) As to the transfer income tax on the instant land, HanT, the Plaintiff’s private village, was performing the work of moving landscaping trees at the time of the on-site verification by the public officials belonging to the Defendant.

(6) In the farmland ledger for the land of this case, land category is whole, in the farming classification, and in the farming classification, crops are marked as ornamental trees.

(7) Meanwhile, the right of lease was established between December 14, 1998 and February 7, 2001, and March 27, 2003 and November 29, 2004 in the instant land under the name of H T T TW (H).

[Ground of Recognition] The above evidence framework, Gap evidence 3, and Eul evidence 2 through 4 (including each number), the whole purport of the pleading, and the whole purport of the pleading

D. Determination

Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66 (4) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that capital gains tax shall be reduced by 100% on the "farmland as of the date of transfer directly cultivated for eight or more years." According to Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Farmland Act, the term "farmland" means land actually used for cultivating crops or perennial plants regardless of its land category, and Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act provides that the above multi-sea plants cultivation area includes not only ginseng or medicinal plants, but also growing seedlings or ornamental trees and their seedlings for the purpose of landscaping, and some of the above multi-sea plants are not included in the land for which the plaintiff had been registered in the above 0-year area, but also included in the 9-year area of land for landscaping, and that the plaintiff could have received 10-year area from the 20-year area of land to the 9-year area of rural plants.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s direct cultivation of the instant land for not less than eight years and deemed to meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of self-employed farmland under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the instant disposition that reported otherwise is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.