Seoul High Court Decision 2011No. 10

indirectly managing agriculture, it shall not be deemed a farming child.

In light of the number of days of annual use, excessive hours of work, period of overseas training, etc., it is not sufficient to recognize that a public official has cultivated farmland directly. Even if he/she engaged in domestic farming, he/she is merely engaged in an indirect operation of agriculture with a view to other occupation, and thus it cannot be viewed

2011Guhap413 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

OraA

Head of Jeju Tax Office

November 23, 2011

December 14, 2011

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 gift tax of KRW 31,470,085 against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 26, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) donated 000-0 O2,589 m2, 000-0 m20 m20 m2, Seopo-si Ob, Seopo-si; (b) reported 0000-0 m220 m20 m20, Seopo-si, Opo-si, 000-0 m23,451 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above land”); and (c) completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 25, 2007, which is a provision on gift tax reduction for the farmland donated to farming children (amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same) pursuant to Article 71(1)1(a) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008).

B. However, in light of the fact that the plaintiff was working for the Seopoposing viewing and receiving the average of KRW 39,107,000 per annum from around 2005 to 2009, the defendant deemed that the plaintiff was engaged in agriculture as a side business and thus, it did not constitute a farmer, and thus, on June 1, 2010, imposed gift tax of KRW 31,470,085 (including additional tax) on the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case").

C. On April 26, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review against the Defendant on April 26, 2010, but was dismissed. On June 14, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for an examination as to the imposition of gift tax with the Board of Audit and Inspection on March 24, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After birth, the Plaintiff resided with his parents in the U.S. O. O. 000 in the vicinity of the farmland of this case and has been directly engaged in farming for three or more years retroactively from the donation date of the farmland of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff constitutes farming children eligible for gift tax reduction and exemption under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Nevertheless, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is not farming children is illegal.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to Article 71(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, where a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree, who resides in a farmland, etc. and directly cultivates farmland, etc., resides in the seat of the farmland, etc. and directly cultivates the farmland, etc. on or before December 31, 2011, the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the gift tax on the value of the relevant farmland shall be reduced or exempted. According to Article 68(3)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22037, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same), one of the requirements to constitute “a farmer who is engaged in farming for more than three consecutive years retroactively from the date of donation of farmland, etc.” refers to a person who cultivates and cultivates farmland under his/her own responsibility without entrusting or lending the farmland, etc., and so long as he/she is directly engaged in farming, he/she shall not be deemed to fall under any other farmer who is indirectly engaged in farming (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do297, etc.

2) In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff was employed for more than 1 to 2. 1 to 2. 1 to 1 to 3. 5 to 1 to 2. , the plaintiff was employed for 1 to 2. 5 to 2. 1 to 3. 5 to 1 to 2. 1 to 3. 5 to 2. 1 to 1 to 3. 1 to 2, the plaintiff was employed for 1 to 4. 1 to 2, the plaintiff was not employed for 205 to 3. 1 to 3. 1 to 4. 5 to 20, the plaintiff was not employed for 20 to 1 to 3. 1 to 4. 1 to 20, the plaintiff was not employed for 20 to 1 to 3. 1 to 20, and the plaintiff was employed for 20 to 1 to 205 to 3. 1 to 20. 1 to 205 to 20. . .

3. Conclusion

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