Whether the farmland falls under one's own farmland for at least eight years;

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff was engaged in cultivating crops in the instant land at all times or appropriated not less than half of the farming work with his own labor force, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 66(4) and (13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Daejeon District Court-2018-Gu -10021 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

CC director of the tax office

2018.26

2018.30

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant’s transfer income tax of 210,305,420 won and farming and fishing of 2014 for the Plaintiff on June 9, 2017

Each disposition of imposition of KRW 9,362,910 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 1982. 1. 23. 0000000 **** ##리 57 답 3,643㎡(이하 '이 사건 토지'라고 한다)를 매매를 원인으로 취득하여 2014. 8. 6. 0000000에 공공용지의 협의취득을 원인으로 양도한 후 2014. 10. 31. 이 사건 토지 양도에 대하여 8년이상 자경농지에 대한 감면을 적용하여 양도소득세를 예정신고ㆍ납부하였다.

B. After investigating the transfer income tax on the Plaintiff, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for at least eight years, and thus denied the reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax on the self-arable farmland (However, the application of the reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax on the land, etc. for public-service business). On June 9, 2017, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 210,305,420 and the special rural development tax for the Plaintiff in 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 7, 2017, but was dismissed on November 30, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1 and 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, while working as a teacher, was in the 11-year period (from 1983 to 1992, 1995) and was concurrently engaged in a rice shed in the instant land, and was directly engaged in a rice shed for six years (from 2003 to 2008) after retirement from the retirement age. The Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for 17 years, and thus, the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) In order for a resident at the seat of farmland to be subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on his/her own farmland pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 66(4) and (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply), he/she shall be engaged in cultivating or growing crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own labor for at least eight years, or who has claimed reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on his/her own farmland (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du7074, Nov. 22, 2002; 207Du9496, Oct. 194, 2094).

2) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 12, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 19.

① 원고는 1959. 5. 20. @@초등학교에서 교사로 근무한 것을 시작으로 초등학교 교사로 근무하다가 2002. 8. 30. 교감으로 정년퇴직하였는바, 원고는 이 사건 토지를 보유한 32년 중 20년 이상의 기간을 초등학교 교사로 근무하였다.

② At the time of the Defendant’s investigation of capital gains tax, the Plaintiff stated that “the Plaintiff was attempting to another person during the retention period of the instant land,” “the Plaintiff was engaged in planting water air, fertilizers, agricultural chemicals spraying, gracks, and gracks by using weekends or vacations during the period in which the Plaintiff did not know about the land.” The Plaintiff carried out the work of planting water, fertilizers, agricultural chemicals spraying, and gracks to another person from the roasry work to the roasry work, and carried out the work of cutting off a daily day and flacking a plastic bag,

③ From 2005 to 2013, rice direct payments for the instant land were received by BB.

④ On August 11, 1992, the Plaintiff also acquired and owned 3,716 square meters in △△△△△, 0000,000, and received rice direct payments from the Plaintiff from 2009 to 2016.

⑤ On March 29, 2017, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted a written confirmation stating that “I would confirm the fact that I would have been excessively reduced or exempted by meeting the requirements for reduction or exemption for eight years, even though I failed to cultivate directly for the entire period of possession, or input one half or more of their own labor force, at the time of filing a transfer income tax return on the instant land.”

3) In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s primary occupation is an elementary school teacher and has no choice but to have limited time to input the instant land into the cultivation of the instant land; (b) the Plaintiff employed his fathers for the cultivation of the instant land; and (c) BB received rice subsidies for four years during the period for which the Plaintiff asserted that he did not retire after his retirement (from 2003 to 2008), the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff was ordinarily engaged in cultivating crops in the instant land or appropriated for 1/2 or more of farming work with her own labor force.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have cultivated the instant land directly for not less than eight years, the instant disposition that did not apply the reduction or exemption provision on the ground that the instant land does not constitute farmland around eight years is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.