Early High Court Decision 2010Du1917 ( October 28, 2011)

It is difficult to recognize that transferred farmland has been self-sufficient for not less than eight years;

In light of the fact that a large number of lands are frequently acquired or transferred and the distance is remote from land transaction behavior of professional farmers, the purchase of farming materials and objective materials for customers of harvested material, and the installation of a long-term site office for construction works on the land, etc., it is difficult to recognize that the land has been self-covered.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2011Guhap1687 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

LAA

Chuncheon Director of the Tax Office

April 6, 2012

April 20, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 000,00,000 for the transfer income tax corresponding to the year 2008, and penalty tax due to the failure to pay the Plaintiff on November 10, 209 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 13, 198, the Plaintiff: (a) on July 13, 198, 000 3,91 m20 m200 m200 m200 m20

D) On October 10, 1991, with respect to a trade-level share in a trade-level, with respect to 4,605 square meters (hereinafter “OO-type 00 land”) prior to 99,000 square meters (hereinafter “O-type 00 land”), each registration of ownership is completed on November 26, 1990 with respect to a trade-level share in a trade-level share in a trade-level land among land owned by O-ri 00.

B. On September 8, 2008, the Plaintiff sold 00 square meters prior to 00-1, prior to 000-1, and 2,298 square meters divided from O00 land divided from O0-1, and O00 to 2,298 square meters (hereinafter “each land of this case”) to GabB, and completed each registration for the transfer of ownership on October 10 of the same year.

C. On October 31, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax on the ground that the Plaintiff, while filing a preliminary return of capital gains tax on each of the instant lands with the Defendant on October 31, 2008, has cultivated each of the instant

D. On November 10, 2009, the Defendant denied the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the grounds that the Plaintiff could not verify that each of the instant lands was self-employed for eight years, and determined and notified KRW 000 and additional tax 00 to the Plaintiff on November 10, 2009 by applying the heavy tax rate of 60% (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. Meanwhile, on October 28, 2008, the Plaintiff purchased 000-0 square meters prior to 00-0,456 square meters from four persons, such as Kim Yong-ran, etc., and completed each registration for the transfer of ownership on November 28, 2008, respectively.

F. On June 8, 2010, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 8, 2010, but was dismissed on June 22, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 21 to 23, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant land and transferred it to ParkB on October 10, 2008, the Plaintiff has to be exempted from capital gains tax pursuant to the provisions on reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-employed farmland under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and thus, the Plaintiff has to be exempted from capital gains tax pursuant to the provisions on reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-employed farmland under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. In addition, since the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant land as a substitute land in Chuncheon-si, Ycheon-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, an area of 2,456 square meters prior to 00-0 square meters, 00-0 square meters prior to 2,800 square meters prior to 3 years or more, capital gains tax on the substitute land under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall be exempted in accordance with the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the farmland land under the Restriction of

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) According to Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272 of Dec. 26, 2002) and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21196 of Dec. 31, 200), where a person directly cultivates farmland for at least eight years while residing in a location of farmland, the tax amount equivalent to 10/100 of the transfer income tax on income accruing from the transfer of farmland shall be reduced or exempted. Further, according to Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a person who directly cultivated farmland for at least three years residing in a former location of farmland and resided in a new location of farmland for at least three years, and where the area of newly acquired farmland for at least 1/2 of the area of farmland is at least 1/3 of the value of the transferred farmland for at least 9/100 of the transfer income tax on his/her own farmland or 9/her own farmland.

2) 그러므로 먼저 이 사건에서 원고가 이 사건 각 토지를 직접 경작하였는지에 관하여 본다. 살피건대, 갑 제14호증, 을 제2호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 이 사건 각 토지는 공부상 그 지목이 '전'이고, 농지원부상 채소를 재배하는 자경 농지로 구분되어 있는 사 실을 인정할 수 있으나, 한편, 갑 제10호증의 8, 갑 제18, 20호증, 을 제4 내지 6호증, 을 제11, 12호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉，① 이 사건 각 토지는 분할 전에는 그 면적이 상당하고, 채소를 경작하는 경우 농작업의 대부분을 인력에 의존할 수 밖에 없는 점 등을 고려할 때, 원고가 가족들의 도움을 받거나(원고의 가족은 1988. 10. 22.부터 1995. 1. 1.까지는 삼척시 O동에, 그 이후로는 서울시 관악구 OO동에 거주하고 있고 원고는 1987. 8. 9.부터 현재까지 춘천시 후평동에 혼자 거주하고 있다), 사람을 고용하여 이 사건 각 토지를 경작하였다는 객관적 자료 없이 스스로 이 사건 각 토지를 직접 경작하였다는 주장은 선뜻 납득하기 어려운 점，② 원고는 OO리 000 토지를 2년여의 간격으로 지분매수 방식으로 2회에 걸쳐 취득하였는바, 이와 같은 취득 경위에 비추어 볼 때 원고가 농작물의 경작을 목적으로 위 토지를 취득하였는지 의심스러운 점，③ CC건설 주식회사가 1996. 3.경부 터 2001. 9경까지 춘천시 동면 OO리 산00-0 일원에서 OO대교 및 접속도로 건설 공사를 진행하면서 이 사건 각 토지상에 현장사무실 등을 건축・사용하였고, 원고는 2003. 6. 12.부터 2006. 5. 30.까지 이 사건 각 토지에서 위 도로공사로 인한 배수문제로 복토 공사를 진행하였으므로 위 기간 동안은 이 사건 각 토지의 경작이 이루어지지 않았다고 보이는 점，④ 원고는 이 사건 각 토지를 취득한 이래 오랜 기간 이를 자경하여 왔다고 주장하면서도 영농자재의 구입 및 수확물의 거래처에 관한 객관적인 자료를 제출 하지 못하고 있고(원고는 2006. 5. 27. 11，800원 및 2007. 4. 17.부터 2007. 8. 1.까지 기간 동안 309，950원 상당의 영농자재 매입전표를 제출하고 있을 뿐이다), 2010. 5. 20.경 경운기를 취득하기 이전에는 농기계를 전혀 보유하고 있지 않았던 점，⑤ 원고는 다수의 토지를 빈번하게 취득하거나 양도하였는바 전업농민의 토지거래행태와는 거리가 먼 점 등에 비추어 보면, 원고가 이 사건 각 토지를 자경하였다는 점에 부합하는 듯한 갑 제1호증의 1 내지 5, 갑 제8, 9호증, 갑 제10호증의 1 내지 7의 각 기재 및 증인 김QQ, 윤RR, 원SS의 각 증언은 이를 그대로 믿기 어렵고, 앞서 인정한 사실 및 갑 제12, 13, 15, 17호증(가지번호 있는 것은 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재 및 영상만 으로는 원고가 이 사건 각 토지를 자경하였음을 인정하기에 부족하며, 달리 이를 인정 할 증거가 없다.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion, which is premised on the Plaintiff’s own land of this case, is without merit without having to examine the remainder of the land, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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