The fact that farmland satisfying the requirements for tax reduction and exemption is the burden of proving that the taxpayer asserts it.

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize as objective evidence that the Plaintiff had directly cultivated the land of this case for not less than eight years due to the Plaintiff’s full-time engaged in the cultivation of crops in the instant land, or cultivating not less than 1/2 of the required farming work with his own labor.

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

2013Gudan169 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

Head of Hongsung Tax Office

January 17, 2014

February 7, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 201 against the Plaintiff on May 14, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 10, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired three lots of land (hereinafter “instant land”) including 00 00 Gun 00 00 Gun 00 Do 000 Do 345-9 Do 345-9 Do 89-2 Do 3,372 Do Do 89-10 Do Do 89-10 Do Do 894 m2, but transferred the land to KimB on January 11, 201.

B. On March 22, 2011, the Plaintiff scheduled the transfer income tax for the transfer of the instant land to another 2011.

Restriction on special taxation under the premise that he/she has self-refised the land of this case for at least eight years;

In accordance with Article 69 of the Act (amended by Act No. 11133, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter referred to as "the Restriction of Special Taxation Act"), an application for tax reduction or exemption under Article 69 was filed.

C. The defendant does not constitute farmland used for farming at the time of transfer of the land of this case.

In light of the foregoing, on May 14, 2012, the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax.

A correction of capital gains tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the year 2011. The disposition of this case

AB made it.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each disposition of this case is unlawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After acquiring the instant land, on March 198, the Plaintiff purchased and planted 4,90 tree seedlings, including big tree, spawn, bank tree, etc., and continuously managed and sold them. At the time of transferring the instant land, various landscape trees, such as low-spawn trees, etc., were planted on the instant land. Therefore, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff did not recognize the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant land for at least eight years while growing the landscape trees as above was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "The tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the transfer income tax shall be reduced or exempted for the income accruing from the transfer of the land prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the land which is subject to the taxation of agricultural income tax, and Article 66(13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24368, Feb. 15, 2013) provides that "Direct farming" means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own land at all times, or cultivates or cultivates them with his/her own labor, for more than eight years by a resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree residing in the location of such land." Meanwhile, the fact that the farmland subject to the tax reduction or exemption under the above provision is a self-defense that the claimant bears the burden of proving it.

2) In light of the above legal principles, if the plaintiff alleged that he purchased approximately 4,00-5,00 crops and seedlings from the forestry cooperative around 198 in consideration of the following circumstances: Gap 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9's each statement, witnessCC, and leD's testimony, which were acknowledged as a whole; ① around 198, he asserted that he purchased approximately 4,00-5,00 crops from the forestry cooperative around 198, he did not contain any personal information about the purchaser; ② thisCC conducting gardening retail business, DaD purchased crops trees on the land of this case from the plaintiff on several occasions, and it was hard to recognize that the plaintiff purchased them under the name of the plaintiff's husband at the time of this case's purchase of Y 2,00, which was hard to recognize as the plaintiff's purchase price of Y 3,000, which was the plaintiff's purchase price of this case's Y 1, which was the plaintiff's purchase price of this case.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant land is not subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.