Suwon District Court 2013Gudan981 ( December 13, 2013)

early 2012 Middle 4251 ( December 05, 2012)

It is difficult to apply reduction and exemption of farmland to land transferred by claimant for at least eight years.

It is difficult to apply reduction or exemption of farmland to the transfer of the controversial land for not less than eight years when comprehensively working, business, workplace, etc.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2014Nu788 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

UnionA

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gudan981 Decided December 13, 2013

June 25, 2014

July 16, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's refusal to correct the transfer income tax for the year of 2010, which the plaintiff rendered on March 30, 2012, shall be revoked.

1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) it is the same as the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance to add the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion in the following paragraphs; and (b) thus, the relevant part shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

○ On September 25, 2013, September 25, 2013, which will be the fourth below the second day, shall be dismissed on December 5, 2012.

○ 5 7 to 11th is as follows.

"Around 2006, 2009, and 2010, airline professionals (Evidence No. 16-2, 3, and 22 of Evidence No. 16) who have taken the land of this case testified to the effect that dry field developed was cryed at the Plaintiff's request. However, in light of the aforementioned various circumstances, the first instance witness KimB and the witnessCC of this court testified to the effect that KimB et al. were cryed by KimB et al. at the Plaintiff's request, and in light of the aforementioned various circumstances, it seems difficult to exclude other persons other than the Plaintiff from crying, even if following the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the above testimony, even if following the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff), the airline professionals (Evidence No. 16-1 of Evidence No. 16), which took the land of this case in 200, did not appear a trace of developing dry field, and it is difficult to find any other c

A. First, the Plaintiff asserts that this Court’s direct cultivation of the instant land with wife for not less than 8 years, using the weekends, etc. after the retirement of ordinary days, constitutes the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under the relevant statutes.

However, the meaning of "direct farming as a requirement for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax" should be determined depending on whether "not less than 1/2 of the farming work has been cultivated directly with his own labor by interpreting Article 66 (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010). It is reasonable to determine that a partial employee, who does not ordinarily engage in agriculture and has other occupation, was cultivated directly only when the input ratio of his own labor, excluding his family members, etc., to the entire farming industry, is 1/80 square meters. The Plaintiff’s total area of the instant land is 1,80 square meters and is 4,374 square meters or more at D High Schools located in O-si, 230 square meters of land, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had no other evidence to recognize that the Plaintiff had been able to use the instant land as a witness for a relatively short period of time after the Plaintiff’s permanent production of the instant land.

According to Article 95 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10408, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same), land for non-business under Article 104-3 of the same Act is excluded from the special deduction for long-term holding, and Article 104-3 (1) 1 (a) of the same Act provides that the owner of land does not reside in the farmland, or does not cultivate himself/herself, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Under Article 168-8 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24356, Feb. 15, 2013), land for non-business purposes is defined as land for non-business purposes, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be seen as being directly engaged in cultivating or cultivating the farmland of this case for not less than 1/20 of the former Income Tax Act or the land for non-business purposes under Article 168-8 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 243).

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.