early 2010 Heavy3089 ( October 18, 2011)

Since it is an indirect management of agriculture, it cannot be viewed as a farming child.

If it is merely an indirect management of agriculture with focus on other occupation, it shall not be deemed to be a farming child, and it shall not be deemed to be a farming child in which the farmland in this case was purchased as an associate member after the lapse of at least one year after the donation of the farmland in this case, and the farmland ledger shall not be deemed to be

2011Revocation of revocation of imposition of gift tax, 10387

NewA

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

April 13, 2012

April 27, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing gift tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on June 15, 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 12, 2007, the Plaintiff donated 00 m2,779 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00 m2,000 m2,000 m2 (hereinafter “the instant farmland”).

B. After that, the Plaintiff, as a farming child, was to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was given a gift from the above BB, a self-employed farmer, pursuant to Article 71 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same), and the Defendant decided to reduce or exempt gift tax after the on-site verification.

C. However, on September 2009, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office instructed the Plaintiff to grant gift tax quota on the grounds that the Plaintiff is not a farming child as provided in Article 71 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and accordingly, the Defendant excluded the exemption of gift tax exemption on the farmland of this case and issued a notice of pre-announcement of taxation and pre-assessment review, and corrected and notified the Plaintiff on June 15, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 18, 201.

The above claim was dismissed.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-satched facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The plaintiff, and (2) the first defendant's disposition of this case is not only illegal on the premise of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, but also on the premise that the first defendant's disposition of this case is erroneous, and (2) the defendant reversed the above decision of reduction and exemption of gift tax after regular investigation about the first plaintiff's application for reduction and exemption of gift tax, and then the disposition of this case is in violation of the good faith principle.

B. Determination

(1) As to the Plaintiff’s first argument

(A) Article 71(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "in cases where a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who lives in the seat of farmland, etc. and directly cultivates such farmland to a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of the farmland, etc., the tax amount equivalent to the total value of the farmland, etc. shall be reduced or exempted, and Article 68(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620 of Feb. 22, 2008) provides that "direct farming" means that "the resident is engaged in cultivating or cultivating crops or perennial plants on his own farmland, or is engaged in cultivating or cultivating them with his own labor, or who is engaged in farming with 1/2 or more of them." Article 68(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "any person who is engaged in farming shall not be deemed to be subject to the principle of no taxation without the law, and that any other person who is engaged in farming shall be deemed to have been engaged in farming for more than three years retroactively."

(B) In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff was engaged directly in farming for three or more years retroactively from the donation date of this case, and the plaintiff was unable to recognize it only by entering the above 20.3 to 18, and witness 21 to 24, and testimony of Yellow E, and there is no evidence to prove it. Rather, the plaintiff reported 19, 20, 20, and 11 (including household numbers) to 0.0, 200, 200, 200, 207, 30.20, 207, 30, 200, 207, 200, 200, 207, 30, 200, 2007, 30, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 307, 200, 200, 300, 200, 200.7, 207, 3.

(2) As to the second argument of the Plaintiff

In general, in tax legal relations, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authorities' actions, first, the tax authorities should express the public opinion that the taxpayer is the subject of trust, second, the taxpayer should not be responsible to the taxpayer, third, the taxpayer should trust and reliance on the opinion list, third, the tax authorities should make the disposition contrary to the above opinion list so that the taxpayer's interests can be infringed, fourth, and the tax authorities' public opinion list should be made by the tax officials in a position of responsibility in principle. In addition, in order to deny the exercise of the rights for the reason that it violates the principle of trust and good faith, it should be objectively considered that the other party has good faith or that the other party has good faith, and the exercise of rights against the other party's trust should reach the point to be acceptable in light of the concept of justice, and the other party's exercise of rights against the other party's trust and good faith should not be considered to violate the above principle of trust and good faith, and it should not be considered to violate the principle of trust and good faith.

3. Conclusion

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