Seocho 2012west 1491 (Law No. 126, 2012)

No land shall be deemed to have been planted for at least eight years;

It is necessary to prove that the land has been self-satisfed for at least eight years before commencing the residence in a place 20km from the location of the land, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the land has been self-satisfed for at least eight years as there is no objective and specific

2012Gudan23085 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimAAAA

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

May 3, 2013

June 14, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition of imposing capital gains tax of 000 won belonging to the year 2010 against the plaintiff on September 7, 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 1973. 3. 14. 남양주시 진건읍 OOO리 000 전 309㎡， 같은 리 0000 전 21㎡(이하 '이 사건 토지'라고 한다)를 취득하여 2010. 5. 6. 이를 양도한 뒤， 이 사건 토지가 조세특례제한법 제69조에서 말하는 8년 이상 자경농지에 해당한다고 주장하며， 양도소득세 감면대상으로 신고하였다.

B. On September 7, 201, the Defendant, as well as the Plaintiff, was a middle student at the time of acquiring the instant land, was employed and worked for PP Motor Vehicle Corporation from October 1, 1981, and resided in a place less than 20km away from the instant land from September 13, 1990 to September 13, 199, on the ground that it does not fall under farmland cultivated directly for not less than eight years, and on September 7, 201, imposed capital gains tax of 000 won (additional tax) for the Plaintiff for the year 2010.

C. On November 22, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request with the National Tax Tribunal for a trial on March 20, 2012, but was dismissed on June 26, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap five and six evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

After acquiring the instant land, the Plaintiff constantly cultivated crops, such as shoulder, straw, and straw, in the instant land by using the horse, straw, and straw, etc., in his own labor, or cultivated or cultivated not less than half of farming work, and the instant land constitutes reduction and exemption from capital gains tax as stipulated in Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Accordingly, the instant disposition on a different premise should be revoked illegally.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Determination

According to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 66(1) and (13) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Plaintiff shall directly cultivate the instant land while residing in the Si/Gun/Gu where the instant land is located for at least eight years, and in the Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the relevant farmland, or in the area within 20km in a straight line from the instant land, and “direct cultivation” means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his own land at least 1/2 or more of farming work on his own labor. In addition, the burden of proving that he cultivated the transferred land on his own land as a requirement for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax is the Plaintiff who is the person liable to pay capital gains tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 1994).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as without merit.