Cho Jae-2014- Daejeon-1938 ( October 29, 2014)

Since the Plaintiff appears to have cultivated the instant land directly for not less than eight years, the Plaintiff’s claim is accepted.

In light of the fact that the witnesses were fluent farmers in the instant land, and there was a growing number of bags at the time of selling the instant land, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for not less than eight years.

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

Daejeon District Court-2014-Gu Group-100568 ( October 13, 2015)

이@@

o Head of the tax office

December 26, 2014

oly 13, 2015

1. Transfer income tax (including additional tax) on September 5, 2013 owed to the Plaintiff for the year 2011.

The imposition of KRW 110,629,420 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired on January 4, 200 the same Ri 1233-1, 704 square meters prior to the same Ri 1233-1, 323-5, and 396 square meters prior to the same Ri 1233-5, respectively. ④ The Plaintiff acquired on December 20, 200 the same Ri 123-4, 58 square meters, and ⑤ the 1233-7, 305 square meters prior to the same Ri 1233-7, and 1260 square meters prior to the same Ri 2,760 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant land”).

B. On August 26, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land in KRW 499,620,000, and reported the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 111133, Dec. 31, 201).

C. On September 5, 2013, the Defendant imposed a disposition of imposition of KRW 110,629,420 on the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for at least eight years” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 23 evidence 1 to 4, Gap 24 evidence 1, 2, Eul 1 and 2

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff was born in December 21, 1990, the Plaintiff was residing in Do Ri 100 meters away from the land in this case until now. The Plaintiff served as a driver of a functional cleaning vehicle belonging to Doo-gun from December 21, 1990 to the present date. After completing waste removal work within 05:0-12:00, the Plaintiff has cultivated 16,321 square meters of land, including the instant land, o-ri farmland 16,321 square meters. The Plaintiff acquired the instant land from the date of acquisition to the date of 2006, 2006 to the date of 201, 200 o-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-type-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-owned-type-owned-owned-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-old-old-old-.

The Plaintiff, at least eight years of self-defense, sold the instant land together with the ornamental water planted on August 26, 201, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) In full view of Gap 2, Gap 4 through 8, Eul 13 through 21, Eul 29 (including 13, 15 through 19 each number), Eul 6, Eul O's testimony, and the following circumstances, i.e., the plaintiff was born at OO 2 and resided at 00,000, 200 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 2.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

2) The Defendant asserts that “one-half or more direct labor force of a farmer” inputs, but according to Article 66(13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23113, Aug. 30, 201), “one-half or more direct labor force of a farmer,” “at least one-half of a farming work with his own labor force,” and according to the overall purport of the entry and arguments in the evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff can be recognized as working as a street cleaners from December 21, 190 to the OOO military office. However, according to the evidence No. 11-1 and No. 2, the Plaintiff could be recognized as having purchased fertilizers, materials, etc. necessary for the farming company from time to time in the OOF, and thus, it does not interfere with the Plaintiff’s employment of street cleaners by cultivating or cultivating labor force.

In addition, the defendant used the land of this case, which is franchising in Oxure, for the customers' books or viewing, and the plaintiff did not intend to create a fishing place on the land of this case. However, according to each video of No. 3-3-7, the land of this case can be acknowledged that the entry of this case into the land of this case is not farmland at the time of transfer. As seen above, Oxure allowed its customers to enter the land of this case without permission, and even if the plaintiff had the intent to create a fishing place on the land of this case, it can cultivate the ornamental water of this case before the establishment of the fishing place. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

February 23, 2015