If the cause of the farming impairment is removed even if the land is not actually cultivated as of the date of transfer, it is deemed that it can be used again as farmland, it shall be deemed that it is a temporary suspension condition.

Between the time of acquisition of land and the time of transfer, the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s family members cultivated land for not less than eight years, and is recognized as farmland in a temporary state of absence at the time of transfer. Thus, it constitutes the requirements for reduction and exemption under Article 69

Reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for self-Cultivating farmland under Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act;

2013Gudan53847 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

April 2, 2014

April 16, 2014

1. The Defendant’s disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 51,359,950 (including additional tax) for the year 2009 owed to the Plaintiff on May 1, 2012 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As of October 22, 1969, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax by applying reduction and exemption for the instant land to the Plaintiff on May 26, 2010, but the Defendant did not accept the application for reduction and exemption of the transfer income tax on the ground that the instant land is not farmland at the time of transfer, and instead did not accept the application for reduction and exemption of the transfer income tax on the Plaintiff on May 7, 2012, on the ground that the instant land is not farmland at the time of transfer, and on the ground that it is not farmland at the time of transfer, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land at KRW 290,531,280 at the time of O on June 29, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 3, 4, and Eul 1

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As a result of an investigation conducted at the time of purchase of the instant land, it is unreasonable for the Defendant to reject the application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-Cultivating farmland for at least eight years, even though the Plaintiff was temporarily temporarily influence due to health aggravation, etc.

2) It is unreasonable to impose penalty tax even if the Defendant did not give any notice even after one year and six months have passed since the completion of the tax investigation.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

A) On March 6, 1951, the Plaintiff succeeded to the instant land upon the death of BusanCC, and her mother was living in OO-dong O-dong O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O in 1962.

B) Since then, the Plaintiff cultivated DDR by entrusting DDR with cultivating the instant land. Since 1980, DDR cultivated the instant land to EE, a copier of DD, and cultivated eE with growing the instant land until 2005. Since then, the Plaintiff did not cultivate the instant land on the grounds of preparation for organic agriculture, aggravation of health, etc.

C) On November 5, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the OO market, stating that “The surrounding status of the OOOO No: approximately 13,223 square meters (4,00 square meters, approximately 70 percent) of forest land is a field other than green areas since 1940s, EE and its affiliated members cultivated houses, maE and their affiliated members without compensation, etc. for several hundred and twenty years with the Plaintiff’s permission. For the purpose of growing organic farming, the Plaintiff entered them as follows: “The period of rest in a cleaning agent is for cultivating agricultural chemicals for organic farming, and it is expected to grow internal plants from the year.”

D) On May 28, 2009, the OOO had notified the owner of the instant land, etc., who is scheduled to be incorporated into a road, of the plan for compensation and the inspection in accordance with the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, and conducted the procedure for expropriation and compensation. At the time, the appraisal corporation at the time stated that the land was incorporated into the instant land in the column of the actual state of use of the protocol of land incorporated into the instant land, and among them stated that the portion used as a forest for the instant land and used as a part of the past is to be calculated by reflecting the portion used as a part of the past as an individual factor in the calculation of the appraised value, and the Korea Appraisal Board stated that the land was used as a part of the entire land and a stable site as an individual factor in the instant land.

[Reasons for Recognition] The aforementioned evidence, Gap 2, 5, 6 evidence, Gap 8 through 10 evidence, Gap 14, 15 evidence, Gap 22 through 33, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

In light of the purport of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, the purpose of the said provision is to reduce the tax burden due to the transfer of farmland as part of the land farming policy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4082, Oct. 30, 1990). Here, the term “self-arable of farmland” includes not only cases in which one has cultivated himself/herself, but also cases in which one has a family member living or living together with his/her family in the same household cultivated income as well as cases in which one has a family member living together with him/her (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu11859, Feb. 3, 1995).

On the other hand, when determining whether farmland is exempt from capital gains tax for not less than eight years, even if the public record is farmland, the land whose land category is not actually cultivated as of the date of transfer shall not be deemed farmland as of the date of transfer, unless it is in a state of temporary closure, regardless of whether it is by the landowner's own or by another person, and as long as it is not temporarily in a state of temporary closure, and thus, it shall not be subject to capital gains tax exemption. However, in light of the various circumstances, if it appears that if the cause of such a trouble is removed, it would have been used again as farmland, it shall be deemed temporary suspension (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu706, Sept. 22,

First, according to the above facts, the land in this case was owned for a period of not less than 8 years from the father of the plaintiff, and the land in this case was owned for a period of not less than 8 years, unless there are special circumstances, such as that the plaintiff's family at the time owned the land and there were other means of living than agriculture, the land in this case shall be presumed to have cultivated crops in the land in this case, and as seen earlier, it may be included not only in the plaintiff himself but also in the case of cultivating the land together with his family living together with his family. Thus, it is recognized that the plaintiff cultivated the land

Furthermore, according to whether the land of this case was farmland as of the date of transfer, and the appraisal report made at the time of the transfer of the land of this case, etc., the land of this case remains scam used as the whole, and this is the dry field of the present state of the above land in the accusation report prepared by the plaintiff in 2007 much more than the year 2009 when the transfer of this case was made, and after the agricultural chemicals were scamed, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to be farmland at the time of the transfer, since until 2005, the Plaintiff was in charge of the cultivation of the land of this case to EE, etc., and if the conditions for organic farming were to be carried out, it shall be deemed that the land of this case was temporarily closed as farmland at the time of transfer.

Therefore, the land of this case transferred by the Plaintiff was cultivated by the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s family members for at least eight years from the time of its acquisition to the time of its transfer, and is recognized as farmland in a temporary state of suspension at the time of its transfer. Thus, it constitutes the requirements for reduction and exemption under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Oct. 1, 201) and the denying disposition of this case (including the penalty tax) by the Defendant is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Ultimately, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.