Cho High Court Decision 2015Da4550 ( December 04, 2015)

Whether farmland is farmland at the time of transfer

The key issue of this case is whether the land of this case constitutes farmland at the time of the transfer date, as alleged by the plaintiff, and the burden of proof is the plaintiff who asserts exemption of capital gains tax.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Changwon District Court 2015Guhap23654 (No. 26, 2016)

sexual intercourse ○

O Head of tax office

March 15, 2016

April 26, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 173,33,510 on the Plaintiff on July 1, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. On December 3, 1980, the Plaintiff acquired 41 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m25 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “land before division”). The said land was corrected to 8,589 m2,000 m2 as a result of the precise survey on November 8, 2013.

B. On November 25, 2013, the land before subdivision was divided into 00 00 00 -00 - 1243-1 - 2,105 m2,1243-2 m2, 375 m2, and 1243-3 6,109 m2.

C. On November 28, 2013, the Plaintiff sold 00,000 00 - 00 - 00 - 1243-1 - 2,105 m2, and 1243-2 - 375 m2, supra (hereinafter “instant land”) for KRW 675 million.

D. On January 29, 2014, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on January 29, 2014 the transfer income tax attributed to year 2013, and reported the full tax amount abated or exempted by applying the reduction or exemption of transfer income tax pursuant to self-Cultivating farmland prescribed in Article

E. On July 1, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to correct and notify KRW 173,33,510 of the transfer income tax of the instant land on the ground that the instant land cannot be deemed farmland at the time of transfer to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On August 27, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but received a decision to dismiss the appeal on December 4, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff resided in the location of the instant land for not less than eight years and cultivated the instant land as orchard at the time of transfer. Therefore, the instant land constitutes farmland as of the date of transfer, and the transfer income tax should be exempted in accordance with Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition imposing the transfer income tax on the premise that the instant land is not “farmland as of the date of transfer” is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) The key issue of the instant case is whether the instant land falls under farmland at the time of the transfer date, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the burden of proof on such land lies in the Plaintiff claiming exemption of capital gains tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7074, Nov. 22, 2002).

2) In full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 26, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 9, Eul’s statements and images, and witness Kim 00’s testimony, it is insufficient to deem the land of this case as farmland at the time of the transfer date, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① The Plaintiff asserts, based on the fact that the actual category of the instant land is recorded as orchards and sprinks in the farmland ledger. However, the farmland ledger is merely an internal data prepared and kept for the management of farmland and the efficient implementation of agricultural policies. Furthermore, the said farmland ledger was prepared as of September 13, 2012, prior to the transfer of the instant land, and it is difficult to view the said farmland ledger alone as constituting farmland as at the time of the transfer date.

② The Plaintiff asserted that the degree of 200 weeks from 150 to 1243 (hereinafter “land”) which was planted on the land after the transfer of the instant land was transferred to the said land, and that there were evidence proving that it conforms to the above alleged facts, such as a letter of concern, a certificate of cultivation, a photograph, and testimony of the witness Kim 00, which were submitted by the Plaintiff.

(3) However, as a result of the tax authority’s verification of facts against those who signed and sealed a certificate of friendship and a certificate of cultivation facts, a considerable number of people were found to have signed and sealed on the sole basis of the mere trend in a state where the content of the certificate itself is unknown or his memory is unclear. Moreover, as the photographs submitted by the Plaintiff are not shown on the date of filming, it cannot be confirmed whether the pictures of the Plaintiff were planted at the time of the transfer of the instant land, and whether it is appropriate for a transfer after the transfer. The witness Kim 00’s testimony is difficult to believe in light of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the witness (the wife, the site, and the site), the witness’s occupation (the funeral service is conducted in the market, but the shot will not be written).

④ On April 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was subject to a field investigation on capital gains tax in Kimhae-gu, and was able to submit the details of remittance within the nearest time, while the Plaintiff was in the process of transferring prokn trees to another place. However, the Plaintiff did not submit the details of remittance until now.

⑤ Examining the airline margin of the instant land, it does not seem to be a self-bruptive trace in 2012 and 2013, and most of the Round photographs taken on July 2013, 2013, which were two months prior to the transfer contract, do not seem to be a scruptive scruptive scruptive scencing. The Plaintiff asserted that the said airline team, etc. was in a temporary state of suspension or due to neglect of management, but did not submit evidentiary evidence.

6. In addition, the Plaintiff is not a direct evidence of the fact that the instant land as of the date of transfer falls under farmland, even if there is no evidence as to the fact that the Plaintiff cultivated fruit trees in the past, on the grounds that the Plaintiff himself/herself is a member of the OO agricultural cooperative, purchased fertilizers, family sprinks, etc. from the said cooperative, and purchased seedlings, such as pine trees, etc. from 00 before the Kimhae National Agricultural Cooperative.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.