early 201st century 4736 ( December 26, 2011)

It is difficult to recognize as being a serious one for not less than eight years.

In light of the fact that a person is employed as the representative director of a textile company during the period of farmland holding, who is frequently engaged in overseas business in relation to his/her duties, and is not directly engaged in the core work of rice farming company, swelves, swelves, etc.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Gu 7908 Disposition of revoking capital gains tax imposition

The AA

Director of the District Office

August 17, 2012

September 14, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 00 against the Plaintiff on July 18, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 24, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired 116 m2 and 000 m2 and 1,752 m2 (hereinafter “the instant farmland”) such as 00 m20 m2 and 00 m2 (hereinafter “the instant farmland”). On April 3, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the instant farmland to Emba, and reported the transfer income tax on the instant farmland at the time of filing a transfer income tax base by deeming it as self-farmland for at least eight years as stipulated in Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. On July 18, 2011, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant farmland was directly cultivated for at least eight years; (b) excluded the application of the said provision; and (c) determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 as capital gains tax.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including these several numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff acquired the farmland in this case located at a place located at a level of 1,000 meters away from the place of residence on March 24, 1997, and owned it directly from 1998 to April 3, 2009, and owned it, but was engaged in rice farming as a full-time employee, or with the Plaintiff’s labor force, and thus directly cultivated for at least eight years. The instant disposition by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The burden of proof for the fact that the plaintiff had cultivated the transferred land directly for not less than eight years is imposed on the person liable to pay capital gains tax in accordance with the above provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 1994; 94Nu96, Oct. 21, 199); the facts that there is no dispute between the parties, and Eul evidence No. 5, and witness 3 are added to the overall purpose of pleading; the following circumstances are that the plaintiff had operated GG as a textile company since 1987, while converting the plaintiff into the corporation on Feb. 23, 200, and had been working as the representative of GG Textiles, and that the plaintiff had been working for not less than 12 times between 197 and 208, and that the plaintiff had been working for not less than 200 marries, and that the plaintiff had been working for not less than 20 marries since 2007, and that the plaintiff had been working for not more than 20 mal.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.