It shall be proved that the transferor who asserts the land directly cultivated for not less than 8 years must actively prove it.

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was engaged in the cultivation of crops or the growing of perennial plants in the farmland of this case for not less than eight years, or that not less than 1/2 of the farming work was cultivated or cultivated with the Plaintiff’s own labor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it

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

2015Gudan62890 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

ZZ

YThe director of the tax office

June 27, 2016

August 12, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The sum of the capital gains tax and additional tax for the year 2012 owed to the Plaintiff on February 4, 2015 by the Defendant

81,757,486 won shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2003. 6. 5. 원고의 동생인 임〇〇로부터 서울 〇〇구 〇〇동 〇〇 답 2,240㎡ 중 940/2240 지분을 취득하였고, 위 〇〇동 〇〇 토지는 2011. 8. 22. 같은 번지 답 1,409㎡와 같은 동 〇〇 답 831㎡로 분할되었다(이하 〇〇동 〇〇 답 831㎡중 원고 소유의 940/2240 지분을 '이 사건 농지'라 한다).

B. On June 20, 2012, the farmland in the instant case was expropriated in the Korea Rail Network Authority, which is a project operator of the construction project for high-speed railroads in the Seoul metropolitan area (hereinafter “instant public works”).

C. On August 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) upon filing a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax for the year 2012 following the expropriation of the instant farmland with the Defendant.

D. According to the outcome of the field investigation of capital gains tax with respect to the Plaintiff, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not have re-established and re-developed for at least eight years from the date of acquisition of the instant farmland, and excluded capital gains tax reduction and exemption pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. On February 4, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 87,864,270, totaling KRW 3,893,210, totaling KRW 81,757,480 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a tax appeal on April 23, 2015, but the said appeal was dismissed on September 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

원고는 동생인 임〇〇로부터 이 사건 농지를 취득하여 인근에서 거주하면서 2012년경까지는 옥수수, 들깨, 호박, 고구마 등 작물 재배를 하고, 그 이후 위 농지를 양도하기 전까지는 나무를 심는 등 8년 이상 직접 경작하였다. 따라서 이 사건 농지에 관한 양도소득세는 감면되어야 할 것이다.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

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, regardless of whether they are taxable or non-taxable requirements or tax reduction or exemption requirements, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. In particular, it accords with the principle of fair taxation to strictly interpret the provisions that are clearly considered as preferential provisions among the requirements for reduction or exemption (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du20116, Dec. 13, 201).

Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24368, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that "income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree among land which is subject to agricultural income tax (including non-taxation, reduction and exemption, and small collection) which is directly cultivated by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of farmland for at least eight years, shall be exempted from the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the capital gains tax." Article 66 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24368, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "the direct cultivation" means the reduction or exemption of the capital gains tax in cases of land which is directly cultivated by a resident who resides in a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located or an area adjacent thereto within a Si/Gun/Gu or within a 20 kilometer radius from the time of its acquisition from such farmland to the transfer."

On the other hand, the fact that the transferor of the transferred land must actively prove it, and the fact that the transferred land has been used as farmland for not less than eight years is recognized, and thus, it is not presumed that the transferor has done self-defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu96, Oct. 21, 194).

2) Determination

보건대, 을 제3 내지 7호증의 각 기재와 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 아래와 같은 사정들을 위 법리에 비추어 보면, 원고가 제출한 증거만으로 원고가 8년 이상 이 사건 농지에서 농작물의 경작 또는 다년생식물의 재배에 상시 종사하였거나 농작업의 1/2 이상을 원고 자신의 노동력에 의하여 경작 또는 재배하였다는 점을 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다. 따라서 원고가 이 사건 농지가 소재하는 서울특별시 〇〇구 또는 그 연접한 시・구 안의 지역 또는 위 농지로부터 직선거리 20㎞ 이내의 지역에 거주하였다는 점에 대하여 나아가 살펴볼 필요 없이 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.

① 원고가 제출한 농지원부는 이 사건 농지가 수용되기 불과 1년 남짓 앞선 때로 이 사건 공익사업의 실시계획 승인이 있었던 직후 무렵인 2011. 6. 27.에 작성되었다[또한 1,000㎡ 이상의 농지에서 농작물을 경작하거나 다년생식물을 재배하는 자에 대하여서만 농지원부가 작성된다는 농지법 시행령 제70조 제1항의 규정의 적용을 받기위해 원고가 자신의 농지 보유 부분인 940㎡(= 분할 전 서울 〇〇구 〇〇동 〇〇 토지의 면적 2,240㎡ × 940/2240)에서 1,000㎡에 미치지 못하는 60㎡ 부분만을 임〇〇로부터 임차한 것으로 보이고, 이러한 작성 경위, 작성 시점 및 원고와 임〇〇의 관계 등에 비추어 보면, 위 농지원부가 객관적 사실에 부합하여 진정하게 작성된 것인지도 의심이 된다].

② There is no evidence suggesting that the period of purchasing agricultural materials submitted by the Plaintiff is less than four years and that the agricultural materials were purchased over eight years.

③ 장〇〇는 피고의 실지조사 당시 장〇〇 본인이 2007년경부터 2012년경까지 이 사건 농지에서 농작물을 직접 경작하였고 위 기간 원고 또는 임〇〇가 위 농지에서 경작한 사실은 없다고 진술하였다. 장〇〇는 위 실지조사 당시 피고 측에게 위 기간 비료, 농약 등을 구매한 내역을 제출하였다.

④ 원고의 자경 사실을 뒷받침하여 주기 위하여 인우보증서를 작성하였던 이〇〇, 김〇〇 등은 원고의 실제 경작기간은 알지 못한다는 취지로 진술을 번복하였다.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.