Requirements for Non-taxation for Farmland

Only on the resident registration registration, the address is located in the location of the farmland, and it is deemed that the person does not actually reside. Therefore, it cannot be said that the person meets the requirements for residence to be exempted from capital gains tax due to a substitute farmland or a 8-year self cultivation.

Article 89 (Non-Taxable Capital Gains)

Article 69 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of taxation; and

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and Eul evidence No. 1.

A. On June 25, 1996, the Plaintiff terminated the title trust and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on the following day. On December 31, 2003, the Plaintiff transferred 3.2 billion won to ○○○ Housing Co., Ltd., and acquired 6,015 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”). On February 14, 2004, the Plaintiff purchased 6,015 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”). On May 31, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an application for non-taxation of capital gains tax on the grounds that he purchased 00 million won from the sale price of the previous land in the instant case.

B. On this ground, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff did not actually reside in the location of the farmland; and (b) deemed that the said application for non-taxation cannot be accepted on the ground that the Plaintiff by proxy cultivated the previous land and acquired land by proxy; and (c) determined and notified the transfer income tax of 905,687,020 for the portion reverted to the year 2003, the instant disposition was rendered.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff acquired the previous land, until December 31, 2003, while residing in ○○○-dong or ○○-dong, etc., ○○-si or ○○-dong, etc., it would have been cultivated directly or by employing other persons. Therefore, it is unlawful for the Defendant to impose capital gains tax on deeming that it is not a farmland substitute, which is a requirement for non-taxation of capital gains tax. Even if it is not a non-taxation for farmland substitute land, the previous land constitutes a farmland for eight

B. Relevant statutes

Income Tax Act (pre-amended by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005)

No income tax on transfer income (hereinafter referred to as “transfer income tax”) shall be levied on the following incomes:

4. Income accruing from substituted land for farmland falling under such cases as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18705 of Feb. 19, 2005)

Article 153 (Non-taxation for Farmland)

(2) The term “such cases as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” as referred to in subparagraph 4 of Article 89 of the Act means the occasion in which farmlands are exchanged for cultivation (excluding the farmland falling under one of subparagraphs of paragraph (4) and satisfying the requirements in the following subparagraphs:

1. Where a person, who resided in a location of previous farmland for not less than three years and has cultivated another farmland within one year from the date of transfer of previous farmland, while residing in a new location of farmland for not less than three years, or has cultivated the previous farmland within one year from the date of acquisition of new farmland, while residing in a new location of farmland for not less than three years; and

2. Where the area of new farmland to be acquired is not less than the area of farmland to be transferred, or the value thereof is not less than half of the value of farmland

(3) The term “location of farmland” in the proviso of paragraph (1) 3 and paragraph (2) 1 means the area falling under any of the following subparagraphs (including the area corresponding to the relevant area at the time of commencing cultivation, but comes not to fall thereunder due to a reorganization, etc. of administrative districts):

1. An area within a Si/Gun/Gu (referring to an autonomous Gu; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) where farmland is located;

2. An area within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to an area referred to in subparagraph 1.

Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7322 of Dec. 31, 2004)

Article 69 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

(1) With respect to any income accruing from a transfer of land prescribed by the Presidential Decree, which is directly cultivated by the resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree, for not less than eight years (not later than December 31, 2005, in case where such farmland in the agricultural promotion area under Article 32 of the Farmland Act is incorporated into the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act (hereafter in this Article, referred to as the "Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation") or into the corporation prescribed by the Presidential Decree which mainly runs the agriculture (hereafter in this Article, referred to as the "agricultural corporation"), not later than five years, and not later than three years, in case where the farmland eligible for subsidies for managerial transfer direct payments prescribed by the Presidential Decree is transferred to the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation or the agricultural corporation not later than December 31, 2010), the tax amount equivalent to 10/100 of the transfer income tax on the income accruing from a transfer of land prescribed by the Presidential Decree, which is included in the residential area, the commercial area and the industrial area (hereafter in this Article, referred to as the "residential area, etc.") under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, or the land designated not later.

Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18704 of Feb. 19, 2005)

Article 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax on Self-Cultivating Farmland)

(1) For the purpose of the text of Article 69 (1) of the Act, the term “resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of the farmland” means a person who has cultivated while living in the area falling under any of the following subparagraphs (including the area which falls under the relevant area at the time of commencement of cultivation but comes not to fall under it due to a reorganization of administrative district) for not less than 8 years (in case of transfer of the farmland to the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation under the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act (hereafter in this Article, referred to as the “Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation”) or to the corporation under paragraph (2), 5 years, and in case of transfer of the farmland subject to the payment of subsidy for management transfer under paragraph (3) to the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation or the corporation under paragraph (2)):

1. An area within a Si/Gun/Gu (referring to an autonomous Gu; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) where farmland is located;

2. An area within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to an area referred to in subparagraph 1.

C. Determination

(1) According to the above relevant laws and regulations, in order to be exempted from farmland as substitute land or to be exempted from capital gains tax for the self-employed around eight years, a person must directly cultivate while living for three or eight or more years in the location of the previous farmland (an area in a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located or in a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the location of the farmland).

(2) First, we examine whether the Plaintiff had resided at the seat of the previous land in this case.

In full view of the purport of pleadings, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 37, and Eul evidence 1 through 9, the plaintiff was transferred to ○○○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○, ○○, ○, ○, ○, ○, ○○, ○, ○○, ○, ○○, ○, ○○, ○○, ○, ○, ○○, ○, ○, ○, ○, ○, ○, ○, and ○, ○○, ○○, 2, 196. The plaintiff was currently working in the name of ○○, ○○, ○, 100, 200, 201.

According to the above facts, after the plaintiff terminated the title trust of the previous land of this case on June 26, 1996, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff actually resided in the ○○ City where the previous land of this case is located or its adjacent area until now since June 26, 1996, and only on the resident registration, the address is placed at ○○○○ City, and actually appears to have resided at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which is located in the land of this case. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff

(3) We examine whether Ghana has cultivated the previous land of this case.

However, even if it is not cultivated by himself, it is necessary to cultivate the land under his responsibility and account even though it is not cultivated by himself, and it is excluded from the case where another person cultivates the land by the relationship such as entrusted management, surrogate cultivation, lease or loan of use, and the person who asserts it should prove it.

Therefore, it is difficult to believe that Gap's evidence Nos. 13, Gap's evidence Nos. 14, Gap's evidence Nos. 17, Gap's evidence Nos. 18, and witness Park ○'s testimony, which correspond to the fact that the plaintiff cultivated the previous land of this case under his responsibility and calculation, are hard to recognize it in light of the following facts, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 10 and 10 through 12, the Plaintiff’s copy of the farmland ledger issued by the ○○○○○○○○ University on December 24, 2003, indicating that the Plaintiff owned and cultivated the answer 1,375 square meters located in the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, an Eup, such as 1,578 square meters located in the 1,578 square meters, but the previous land located at ○○○○○○○ was not included in the said farmland ledger; ② ○○○○○○○○ apartment ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a farmer, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a farmland which had been found to have been cultivated from 70 years prior to ○○○○○○○.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff leased or entrusted the previous land, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff cultivated the previous land under his responsibility and account. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff changed large-scale farmland into farmland 3,918 square meters, such as ○○○○○○○○, ○○○, etc., ○○○○○, ○○○○, etc., for more than three years, the Plaintiff did not cultivate the previous land, which is the transferor farmland, at the location of the farmland, for more than three years, and thus, it is the same as

(4) Therefore, the disposition of this case imposed by the Defendant on the ground that the income from the transfer of the previous land does not fall under the non-taxation object of transfer income tax is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed for reasons.