Seoul Administrative Court-2013-Gu Group-6407 ( October 31, 2013)

Requirements and whether direct cultivation is met;

The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have cultivated the instant land directly for at least eight years in the course of operating the Gosiwon.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2013Nu5064 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

AA

*The Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court 2013Gudan6407

June 12, 2014

June 26, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The decision of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's decision is revoked. The defendant's disposition of correction notice of capital gains tax for the year 200* the plaintiff's 200*.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff, unlike the entry in the resident registration book, resided in an area within 20km in a straight line from the land of this case, for more than eight years. The plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case, and the "LL Publication Board" was operated by the plaintiff's father BB, and there was no fact that the plaintiff maintained his livelihood by driving the truck, etc., so the disposition of this case was unlawful.

Therefore, "Direct farming" under Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010) which applies to the disposition of this case requires direct farming as a concept for achieving the legislative purpose of preventing speculation of non-resident land and reducing the tax burden of self-employed farmers for not less than eight years so as to promote agriculture and rural communities by reducing the tax burden of non-resident land for not less than eight years, unlike agricultural managers, it is necessary to have direct production of 1/2 or more of the farmland with the location, time close (on a regular basis) or 1/2 or more of the farmer's own. Accordingly, it is reasonable to interpret that capital gains tax reduction should be excluded in cases where a farmland owner cultivates farmland directly only intermittently with other occupation except for agriculture, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du23682, Feb. 24, 2011).

However, according to the evidence stated in Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff could be presumed to have resided in the above domicile for the above period unless it is recognized that the plaintiff had resided in "Seoul******* Dong** Dong** Dong* because he/she had resided in the above domicile within 20km of the land as well as his/her farmland ledger before the date of the transfer of 20.0 to 20.0 to 20.0 to 12.0 to 20, the plaintiff's allegation that the above land was located in the above farmland ledger before the date of the transfer of 1983.10 to 7.0 to 196.0 to 11.0 to 20 to 20 to 200 to 20 to 3.0 to 3.0 to 20 to 3.0 to 3.0 to 12, the plaintiff's allegation that the above presumption was not sufficient to 1 to 6.0 to 16.0 to 6.0 to 16.

Ultimately, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.