The plaintiff cannot be deemed to be a farmer under Article 71 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

It is difficult to recognize that agricultural crops have been cultivated directly for more than three consecutive years retroactively from the date of donation, and it cannot be viewed as a farmer under Article 71 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

Article 71 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the farmland, etc. donated to farming offsprings

2017Guhap61875 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

AA

00. Head of tax office

July 20, 2017

September 14, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 197,566,710 against the plaintiff on June 3, 2016 by the defendant of the Gu office shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 2, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation on October 23, 2007, as to the aggregate of 13,736 square meters (hereinafter “the farmland in this case”) of 00,000 square meters and 56,000 square meters, which were the father BB owned on November 2, 2007.

B. On November 22, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a return on gift tax reduction or exemption pursuant to Article 71 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same) on the ground that the Plaintiff, as a farming child, was donated to the Defendant from the said BB, a self-employed farmer.

C. From February 22, 2016 to March 22, 2016, the Defendant issued an on-site verification for the follow-up management of farmland subject to gift tax reduction and exemption, and issued a notice of correction and notification of KRW 197,56,710 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been directly engaged in farming, such as that high-amount income accrued continuously for at least three years retroactively from the date of donation of the instant farmland, on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been engaged in farming for at least three years retroactively from the date of donation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 17, 18 (including the number of each unit; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

As to the Defendant’s assertion that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the grounds of the disposition and the relevant laws, the Plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case constitutes a farming child under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, such as residing in the farmland of this case and actually cultivating the farmland of this case, and that the disposition of this case

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 71(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that where a resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree, who resides in a farmland at the seat of the farmland and directly cultivates the farmland to his/her lineal descendant prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of the farmland (hereinafter referred to as a "self-employed farmer"), the amount of tax equivalent to the total amount of gift tax on the value of the farmland concerned shall be reduced or exempted. According to Article 68(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620 of Feb. 22, 2008), the term "direct cultivation" means that a resident engages in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants in his/her own farmland at least 1/2 of the cultivation or growing with his/her own labor. According to Article 68(3)2 of the same Act, the term " lineal descendant prescribed by the Presidential Decree" means a lineal descendant, Si/Gun/Gu, or Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the farmland as of the date of donation of farmland, who has been directly engaged in farming for three years or longer.

2) In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff is a farming child under Article 71 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the witnessCC, and the testimony of DD alone, as to whether the Plaintiff is a farming child, and comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings as to whether the Plaintiff is a farming child. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since the Plaintiff cannot be deemed a farming child under Article 71 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

A) From September 1996 to October 200, the Plaintiff was working as a worker for GG wholesale services and HH heating and cooling companies located in Seoul, and from November 10, 2000 to April 2016, the Plaintiff registered the business of the display place wholesale and retail business (hereinafter referred to as the “instant business”) with the trade name called “FDBC” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant business”). From November 10, 2000 to April 2016, the Defendant conducted on-site verification for gift tax management.

The Plaintiff reported the amount exceeding KRW 100 million each year from 2004 to 2007, which was donated to the instant farmland, as the Plaintiff’s income from the instant project, continuously reported the amount exceeding KRW 100 million each year from 2014 to 2014.

B) The Plaintiff resided with his/her parents at 00 00 00 m3 and 73 on November 7, 1996, and filed a move-in report with his/her family on May 20, 1997 as 00 mar A Dong 202 after having married with his/her parents. Since then, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with his/her family on June 25, 2004 at 00 mar 70 mar 100 mar 200 mar 201, and the Plaintiff continued to visit the above move-in report with his/her family on December 10, 200 mar 20 mar 20 mar 200 mar 20 mar 13010 mar 20 mar 108 mar 20 mar 1010 mar 28 10 mar 10, 2018 m.

C) Also, even after the farmland in this case was donated to the Plaintiff, BB received rice subsidies for the said farmland, and even agricultural chemicals and fertilizers continued to be purchased by BB. The Plaintiff joined the agricultural cooperative association on August 26, 2011, which was about four years after the date of donation of the farmland in this case.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation on the ground that the disposition of this case is illegal is dismissed as it is without merit.