early 2010 Heavy316 ( December 02, 2010)

It is difficult to deem that not less than 1/2 of the large farmland farming work has been cultivated with his own labor;

In light of the fact that three projects, such as parking lot business, etc. were operated, the community residents stated as the result of on-site verification that large farmland has been cultivated by a third party, and the receipt of subsidies for preserving rice income, etc., it is insufficient to deem that a third party cultivated 1/2 or more of the farming work with his own labor in large farmland.

2011Guhap2430 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX

port of origin

October 13, 2011

November 24, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 101,720,130 on the Plaintiff on June 10, 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 6, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired 4,464m2 (hereinafter referred to as the “the instant substitute farmland”) from the Won-si, the wife population of Taesung-si, the Plaintiff transferred the instant farmland to another on November 15, 2006, and on July 2, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired OOri 00-0 3,698m2 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant substitute farmland”).

B. On July 27, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax of KRW 76,385,440 by applying Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which is a provision on reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for farmland substitute land.

C. Since then, on June 17, 2010, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant substitute farmland and did not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax due to substitute farmland under Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and that on June 17, 2010, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 101,720,130 for capital gains tax reverted to year 206 (hereinafter “instant disposition

D. On October 7, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal on October 7, 2010, but the said claim was dismissed on December 2, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff directly cultivated the substitute farmland of this case, it constitutes an exemption from capital gains tax under Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In order to constitute a substitute farmland for which an amount of tax equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax is reduced pursuant to Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9921 of Jan. 1, 2010) and Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 19888 of Feb. 28, 2007), one person directly cultivated the farmland while living in a Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland is located or in a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto, or in a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto, for more than three years, and one year from the date of transfer of the farmland must live in the said area for more than three years, and the purport of the legislation lies in promoting the development and encouragement of agriculture by protecting farmers by allowing free substitution of farmland (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da70679, Mar. 8, 198).

(2) 위 법리에 비추어 이 사건을 보건대, 앞서 든 증거들 및 을 제2 내지 5호증 (가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉, ① 원고는 주차장업, 물류창고보관업, 부동산임대업 등 3개의 사업을 운영하고 있고, 이 사건 대토농지 이외에도 용인시 일원에 약 17,000㎡ 이상의 넓은 농지를 보유하고 있었던 점, ② 이 사건 대토농지는 용인시 처인구 ▽▽동 000인 원고의 주소지로부터 약 24km나 떨어진 거리에 있는 점, ③ 피고의 현지확인 결과, 마을 주민들이 이 사건 대토농지는 원고가 취득하기 오래전부터 현재까지 오AA이 경작하여 왔다고 진술하고 있고, 원고도 농기계를 사용하는 농사일은 오AA이 품삯을 받고 하였다고 진술하고 있는 점, ④ 오AA은 2008년 쌀소득보전직불금을 수령하였으나, 원고는 이를 수령한 적이 없는 점, ⑤ 이 사건 대토농지로부터의 수확물의 처분에 대하여 원고는 자신이 일부 소비하고 나머지는 불우이웃을 도왔다며 납득할 만한 답변을 하고 있지 못한 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 갑 제4 내지 14호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재 등 원고가 제출한 증거들만으로는, 원고가 이 사건 대토농지에서 농작업의 2분의 1 이상을 자기의 노동력에 의하여 경작하였다고 보기에 부족하고, 달라 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition based on the foregoing premise is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing this is not acceptable.

3. Conclusion

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