early 2012 Middle 3372 ( October 24, 2013)

The key land is not subject to self-recoveration and reduction for not less than eight years.

According to the resident registration information history, the details of labor income, etc., it is difficult to view that the claimant actually cultivated at least 1/2 of the farming work with his/her own labor, and according to the airline margin and sales records, there is a lack of objective evidence to recognize that the claimant actually cultivated pine trees. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the claim note.

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

2013Gudan800 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

Head of the Office of Government

October 21, 2013

November 18, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax for the year 201 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2011 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 13, 1984, the Plaintiff acquired an OO-gun O-gun 575-1 3,544 square meters (hereinafter “instant farmland”) and transferred the said farmland on February 7, 201.

B. On March 6, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on capital gains tax with the Defendant that the instant farmland constitutes the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for self-arable farmland under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

C. On December 1, 2011, the Defendant deemed that the instant farmland does not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption for eight years, and thus, rendered a correction and notification of the KRW OO in the capital gains tax reverted to the Plaintiff in 2011 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The Plaintiff, even before March 31, 1995, cultivated the said farmland directly with his parents in the hometown, which is the location of the instant farmland during the period of leave or home-based work, even until March 31, 1995, and the period after discharge of the military, after discharge of the farmland, was also the period from the date of transfer of the said farmland to the date of transfer of the said farmland, using the weekend, holidays, and home-based work period, and thus, the Plaintiff met at least eight-year requirements for capital gains tax

2) Even if the above requirements are not satisfied, the Plaintiff acquired substitute farmland within one year after residing in the location of the instant farmland for at least three years and directly cultivated the said farmland, so it is possible to reduce or exempt capital gains tax due to substitute farmland for the Plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination as to the assertion of reduction or exemption of capital gains tax due to the 8 year self-defense

1) Relevant legal principles

According to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11133, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same) and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter the same), a transferor, as a requirement for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, shall live in a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located or an area within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto, or within a Si/Gun/Gu where such farmland is located, or within a 20-meter radius from such farmland, and directly cultivate it for not less than eight years until it is transferred from the time of acquisition from such farmland. The "farmland" is a rice paddy and paddy field, which is actually used for cultivation regardless of the land category on the public register, and the "direct cultivation" means that the transferor engages in cultivating or growing agricultural crops or growing them on his/her own labor force or cultivating more than 1/2 of them.

The purport of the aforementioned provision on exemption from capital gains tax on self-owned farmland is to prevent the decline in rural population and to support policies to foster agriculture by allowing those engaged in agriculture to engage in agriculture for a long time through exemption from capital gains tax on income accrued from the transfer of self-owned farmland for not less than eight consecutive years. As such, even if a person engaged in agriculture concurrently engages in another occupation, if he/she concurrently engages in another occupation, he/she shall not be deemed a self-employed farmer, but if he/she indirectly engages in agriculture in another occupation, he/she shall not be deemed a self-employed farmer. In addition, the burden of proof on the fact that he/she cultivated the transferred land is a taxpayer who asserts exemption from capital gains tax, 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 been self-employed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996, Oct. 21,

2) Determination

보건대, 을 제2, 4, 7, 9호증의 각 기재, 증인 박CC의 일부증언 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 피고 측이 2011. 10.경 실시한 이 사건 농지와 관련한 자경농지감면 현지확인 당시 인근 주민들은 원고가 OO도 OO군 OO면 OO리에 거주하지 않는다고 진술하였던 점, ② 위 조사 당시 소외 박BB는 이 사건 농지에서 최근 6년간은 원고의 동생 장인어른이 삼농사를 지었고, 그 이전에는 박BB 본인이 수년간 벼농사를 경작하여 왔다고 진술하였고, 마을 주민인 박CC 역시 이 법정에 증인으로 나와 "증인(박CC)이 원고의 부탁을 받으면 콤바인 삯을 받는 조건으로 자신의 콤바인을 직접 몰아서 경작을 도와주곤 했다.", "수시로 박BB에게 많이 부탁을 하였다. 그래서 농약 주는 것도 그렇고, 보통 힘든 일은 박BB가 많이 도와주었다."라고 증언하였던 점, ③ 원고는 군에서 전역한 이후 2008.경까지는 DD테크원 주식회사에서, 그 이후부터 2010.경까지는 주식회사 EEE에서 근무한 것으로 확인되고, 위와 같이 근무하는 기간 매년 최소 OOOO원에서 최대 OOOO원의 근로소득이 있었던 점, ④ 위 각 회사에서 근무할 당시 원고의 근무처는 OO시 OO구 OO동 내지 OO시여서 이 사건 농지와는 상당한 거리에 놓여 있었던 점, ⑤ 또한 원고가 1995.경부터 2008.경까지 DD테크원 주식회사에서 근무하는 동안 등록되어 있는 비상연락망 주소지는 'OO시 OO구 OO동 OO아파트 107동 1301호'였던 점, ⑥ 피고 측이 DD테크원 주식회사 인사팀으로부터 확인한 원고의 근무형태(오전 7시 출근, 오후 4시 퇴근) 등에 비추어 볼 때, 원고의 주장과 같이 주말 및 재택근무시간 등을 활용하여 이 사건 농지에 관한 농작업의 2분의 1 이상을 원고 자기의 노동력에 의하였다는 것을 쉽사리 납득하기 어려운 점, ⑦ 피고 측의 2012. 4. 11.자 현장 확인 당시 이 사건 농지에는 폐헬기 1대와 폐선박 1척이 놓여 있고, 높이 60cm미만의 소나무가 성긴 형태로 식재되어 있으며, 복토되지 않은 길가 천변 부분에는 1 내지 2m 정도의 소나무가 식재되어 있는 것이 확인될 뿐이었던 점, ⑧ 원고는 이 사건 처분에 관한 이의신청에서의 주장과 달리 이 사건 소장을 통해 이 사건 농지에서 원고 동생의 도움을 받아 6년간 인삼농사를 경작하였다고 주장하여 위 농지에서의 경작물에 관한 주장에 일관성이 없는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 원고가 제출한 모든 증거에 의하더라도 원고가 이 사건 농지에서 농작물의 경작 또는 다년생식물의 재배에 상시 종사하였다거나 농작업의 2분의 1 이상을 자신의 노동력에 의하여 경작하였다는 점을 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

D. Determination on the assertion of reduction or exemption of capital gains tax due to the acquisition of substitute farmland

1) Relevant legal principles

According to Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67(1), (2), and (3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, where a person who has resided in the previous location of farmland for not less than three years and cultivated directly, by acquiring another farmland within one year (two years where expropriated) from the date of transfer of the previous farmland, while residing in the new location of farmland for not less than three years, and the area of newly acquired farmland is not less than 1/2 of the area of farmland to be transferred or 1/3 of the value of the transferred farmland is not less than 1/3 of the value of the farmland to be acquired, the tax amount equivalent to 10/100

2) Determination

However, the capital gains tax exemption system based on the acquisition of substitute farmland also provides for the purpose of protecting farmers by allowing and guaranteeing free substitution of farmland, and promoting the development and promotion of agriculture. Thus, the previous land and new acquired land shall be farmland, and the transferor shall be a person with own land at the time of transfer of the previous land (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu3695 delivered on September 29, 195). The burden of proof for the requirements for capital gains tax exemption for substitute farmland lies on a taxpayer who asserts the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996 delivered on October 21, 1994). However, even according to all evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to deem that the previous land is a person with own own land.

In addition, the farmland for which the Plaintiff claimed to have acquired as substitute land is the land located within the Civilian Control Zone in which entry is impossible unless there is a certificate of entry. In addition, it is difficult to recognize that only the fact that the land of miscellaneous trees was confirmed as miscellaneous land from the Airman on September 6, 201 and the airman on April 14, 201 that it was confirmed as miscellaneous land was not considerably disputed between the parties, or that only the fact that miscellaneous land was confirmed as miscellaneous land in the airman on April 14, 2012 is not considerably disputed between the parties, or that miscellaneous land in this case was re-established for at least three consecutive years.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion also seems to be a mother and there is no reason.

3. Conclusion

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