8 year ago requires taxpayers to bear the burden of self-sufficiency.

The burden of proving the income from reduction or exemption under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is not submitted to the plaintiff and the plaintiff does not submit objective data proving that the plaintiff has cultivated the land in this case, so the disposition to exclude reduction

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

2016Guhap21699 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Park 00

00. Head of tax office

December 8, 2016

December 29, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant revoked the disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 on the Plaintiff on March 2, 2016.

(c)

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 18, 1973, the Plaintiff purchased 00 m2,00 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2 (hereinafter “each land of this case”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 26, 1973. On April 9, 2013, the Plaintiff sold the instant land to the maximum 00,000 m2 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 5, 2013.

B. On November 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a return after the deadline for the transfer income tax following the transfer of each of the instant lands, and filed a return of the transfer value of KRW 00,00,000,000, and the acquisition value of KRW 00,000,000, which is calculated by applying the provisions for reduction and exemption of the transfer income tax under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12173, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter “Act”) and Article 66 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24890, Dec. 4, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”).

C. As a result of conducting a tax investigation of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff, the Defendant: (a) determined that the Plaintiff did not own each of the instant land for at least eight years; and (b) rendered a disposition to exempt the Plaintiff from capital gains tax on self-farmland; and (c) imposed capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 on the Plaintiff for the year 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 4, 2016, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the appeal on October 4, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 12 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 2, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From March 18, 1987 to March 18, 1987, the Plaintiff owned each land of this case, which is a small-scale farmland of 791 square meters, for a period of 43 years, while serving as a public official. The Plaintiff directly cultivated at least 1/2 of the farming work in each land of this case for a period of 8 years or more by using the weekend or attendance time, and the Plaintiff’s retirement time is within 20 minutes, and the Plaintiff directly cultivated at least 1/2 of the farming work in each land of this case for a period of 8 years or more by using the hours before the weekend or attendance time, after retirement. Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff did not own the land of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Article 69(1) of the Act, Article 66(1), and Article 66(1) and (13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act clearly stipulate that a resident shall directly cultivate the relevant farmland while residing in a Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant farmland is located, a Si/Gun/Gu located adjacent to the relevant farmland, or an area within 20km in a straight line from the relevant farmland for at least eight years. In this case, the term "direct cultivation" means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland or growing or growing them with his/her own labor by interpreting the meaning of "one-2 or more self-help" as a grammatic method (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010); and the burden of proving that he/she directly cultivated the land that is transferred as the requirements for the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on his/her own farmland is the person liable to pay capital gains tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 194Nu.

2) Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 8, Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 11, and all pleadings are taken.

The following facts can be acknowledged according to the present situation.

(1) The records of the change of domicile of the plaintiff are as follows:

Address (Land Number) The date of transfer and the date of non-transfer;

From October 20 to December 8, 1979, the plaintiff was a minor at 00:0 o0 o,00 o,00 o,000 to December 8, 1979.

From December 9, 1979 up to November 22, 1985 up to November 4, 1982 up to November 15, 1984, 00 Dong 00-0, 000 to November 15, 1984

From November 23, 1985 to October 30, 1986, approximately 40 km in a straight line with each of the land of this case, 00:0 0-0 o,000 to October 30, 1986.

From October 31, 1986 to October 30, 1987, approximately 40km in a straight line with each of the instant lands and each of the instant lands on March 30, 1987.

From March 31, 1987, up to November 13, 1987, up to 25 km in straight line with each of the land of this case, No. 00 Dong-dong No. 00, up to 00 km in straight line.

From November 14, 1987 to January 12, 1988, 15 km on each of the land of this case and 15 km in a straight line, 00 o.e., 00 o. o. 00 o.

00, 00-0, 000, 198 January 13, 198 to April 28, 198, at least 25 km in straight line with each of the land of this case on April 28, 1988.

From April 29, 198 to May 15, 1990, approximately 30km in a straight line with each of the land of this case, 00 Dong 00-0, 00-0, 198.

approximately 30 km from May 16, 1990 to December 24, 1992, 00 Dong 00-0, 000 to May 16, 1990.

From December 25, 1992 to September 21, 1994, approximately 30km in a straight line with each of the land of this case, 00 Dong 00-0, 000 to December 25, 1992.

From September 22, 1994 to February 16, 1995, approximately 30km on a straight line with each of the land of this case, 00 Dong-dong 00,000 to 00 km

approximately 10 km from February 17, 1995 to January 7, 1999 each of the lands of this case and about 10 km in straight line with each of the lands of this case, 00 :00 No. 00 m.

From January 8, 1999 to January 8, 1999, from 00:0 00 :00 -00 - 00 - 00 - - 00 - and 1 km in straight line with each of the instant land

② Since the Plaintiff’s 00-0 of Sep. 5, 1984 and converted into 00-000 to Feb. 17, 1995 on the resident registration, the Plaintiff constituted the same household as the Plaintiff, the householder, from February 17, 1995 to Dec. 27, 1998. However, as of Dec. 28, 1998, the Plaintiff made a move-in report to the head of the household at 308-Dong-dong, Busan Metropolitan City, Geum-gu, 1014 to Dec. 303, 198. The records of the move-in report from Dec. 28, 1998 to Dec. 28, 1998 are as follows:

Address (Land Number) The date of transfer and the date of non-transfer;

From December 28, 1998 to December 25, 2000, approximately 20 km on each of the lands of this case and each of the lands of this case on December 25, 2000.

From December 26, 2000 to December 15, 2008, approximately 20 km on each of the lands of this case and 0 km on December 15, 2008.

Within 15 km in straight line with each of the land of this case between December 16, 2008 and December 13, 2010, 00:0 0 :00 :0 :0 :0 :00 :0 :00 :

From December 14, 2010 to December 14, 2010, 00:00 to 15 km in straight line with each of the land of this case.

③ The Plaintiff was appointed as a local public official on June 7, 1981 and served for 00 on March 17, 1987, and was reappointed as a local public official on March 18, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “00 office at the time”) and served for 00 office offices until June 6, 2005, while serving for 00 office offices from June 7, 2005 to January 31, 2010, and served for 000 office offices in Seoul. From February 1, 2010 to March 30, 2012, the Plaintiff was promoted as an administrative official on March 30, 201, and the Plaintiff was serving for 00 office offices.

③ Serial No. 11 of the farmland ledger (No. 11) No. 1 submitted by the Plaintiff is indicated as follows: 00 m. 00 m. 00 m. 000 m. m. 0,000 m. m. 0,000 m. 1: 'self-c. m. m.’ in the “c. m. 1, 200 m. m. 15, 2003.’

④ Around each of the instant lands, Kim 00, et al., were prepared to the effect that the Plaintiff directly cultivated rice farmers in each of the instant lands.

3) However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of each of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 6’s overall purport of pleading, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff is engaging in the cultivation of crops in each of the land of this case or cultivated not less than half of farming work with his own labor.

① Considering the fact that the Plaintiff worked as a public official before the acquisition of the instant land, and that from the time when the Plaintiff moved to a householder of 000 - 00 - 000 - 0000 - 00000 - 00000, the Plaintiff appears to have actually resided in the Plaintiff’s domicile on the resident registration of 00, and that the distance from the Plaintiff’s actual residential place prior to each of the instant land and the Plaintiff worked in Seoul00 from June 7, 2005 to January 31, 2010, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff had been engaged in farming work on each of the instant land after the time prior to or after the usual working day, and that the time during which the Plaintiff is able to perform farming work is most limited to the weekend.

② In light of the size of each of the instant lands, the types of crops, the Plaintiff’s place of residence, and their occupational relations, etc., considerable parts of the farming works in each of the instant lands are deemed to have been 00 grandchildren. At least, the Plaintiff’s farmland ledger (Evidence A5) submitted by the Plaintiff is indicated as 00 Plaintiff’s mother grandchildren, and the Plaintiff’s household members (managing members) are merely indicated as 00, and the sales revenue and sales revenue (Evidence B) by 00 agricultural traders were also written from January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2009; from January 1, 2010 to November 25, 2014, the customer name purchased fertilizers, etc. from each of the instant lands were written as 00, and such circumstance also supports the Plaintiff’s pre-assessment review or co-operation in the process of making it possible for the Plaintiff to have been directly or indirectly entrusted with the Plaintiff’s health or 100-year rural residents’ losses, etc.

"Third, the serial number No. 11) No. 1 of the farmland ledger No. 1 submitted by the plaintiff stated "a 227 mal. 1,782 m. m. 227 m. m. 227 cannot be ruled out." The possibility that the above 227 m. m. were not cultivated can not be ruled out. The No. 45 m. 15 m. m. 200 and 15 m. m. c. c. c. of the farmland ledger submitted by the plaintiff is nothing more than a witness of the plaintiff's cultivation of each land of this case. In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff cultivated more than half of farming work with his own labor by

5. Other objective materials proving that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land were not submitted.

4) Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for reduction and exemption stipulated in Article 69(1) of the Act and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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