Early High Court 201J 2617 ( October 28, 2011)

It is difficult to recognize that transferred farmland has been cultivated directly for not less than eight years.

It is difficult to recognize that farmland was directly cultivated in light of the fact that it works as regular workers at manufacturers and sellers located at a considerable distance of farmland and earned income, farmland ledger has been prepared for more than six years from the date of acquisition of farmland, the total farmland area including transferred farmland is considerable, the number of agricultural chemicals and fertilizers purchased during the period of possession, the number of purchases, etc.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Guhap370 Revocation of Disposition rejecting capital gains tax rectification

YAA

Head of Suwon Tax Office

June 22, 2012

July 20, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on May 14, 201 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 4, 1998, the Plaintiff acquired and owned the instant farmland on June 11, 2009 and reported and paid KRW 000 capital gains tax on May 31, 201, 201, while transferring the instant farmland to Sungsung-si on May 31, 201.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff asserted that capital gains tax should be reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 69 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning Taxation (amended by Act No. 921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) as he/she directly cultivated the farmland of this case for at least eight years, and rejected the Defendant’s request for correction on May 14, 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 18, 201, but on July 10, 2011.

28. The above claim was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1, and 4, and the whole purport of the pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For more than eight years from August 4, 1998 to June 11, 2009, the Plaintiff owned the farmland in this case and directly cultivated crops, such as bean, bean, bean, salv, and arms, in the said farmland. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s refusal of the Plaintiff’s request for correction of transfer income tax on the ground that it is not recognized that the Plaintiff’s self-defense was not recognized is illegal.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "The direct cultivation of land prescribed by Presidential Decree, which is directly cultivated by a resident who resides at the seat of farmland for not less than eight years, shall be exempted from the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the transfer income tax on the income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree among land subject to agricultural income tax." Article 66(13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21565 of Jun. 26, 2009) provides that "direct cultivation" means that a resident is engaged in cultivating or cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his own farmland at all times or by cultivating or growing them with his own labor for not less than half of the farming work. The fact that "direct cultivation" is being done by a transferor and that the land has been used for not less than eight years should be proved actively by the transferor, and it is not presumed that the transferor has been presumed to have been replaced by the transferor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 196Nu 194.

(2) Based on the above legal principle, each of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 through 3, each of the entries in Eul evidence Nos. 2-2 and 3 (including household numbers), as to whether the plaintiff cultivated the farmland of this case for not less than 8 years, is hard to believe in light of the following circumstances, and there is no other evidence to prove that the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and evidence Nos. 4 through 6 are insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's self-defense, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

① From 2003 to 2009, the Plaintiff obtained wage and salary income (income amount) equivalent to 000 won in total while working as a full-time employee at the manufacturer and distributor of software related to communications located in the Odong in Daegu Northern-gu and the Odong in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul, as indicated below, located in the location of the farmland of this case.

② Around May 2011, the Defendant conducted on-site verification surveys on the farmland in this case, and the neighboring residents KimB (e.g., the Plaintiff’s mother from 1998 to 2007) responded to the question of the Defendant’s investigating staff.

③ The farmland ledger under the Plaintiff’s name with respect to the farmland of this case was first prepared on October 12, 2004 after six years or more from the date of acquisition of the said farmland, and the Plaintiff joined the said farmland ledger as a member of the KK Agricultural Cooperative on December 31, 2007, around three years from the date of acquisition.

④ The Plaintiff asserts that it was directly cultivated the farmland in this case using weekends and holidays, and that it was sufficiently possible for the Plaintiff to grow the farmland in this case even though it was cultivated by the Plaintiff, and that the entire farmland owned by the Plaintiff (including the farmland in this case) directly cultivated by the Plaintiff amounts to not less than 1,400§³, and in light of the type and ecological characteristics of crops cultivated in the farmland in this case, the ordinary cultivation, management and harvest methods of the crops in this case, and the number of times the Plaintiff’s purchase of agricultural chemicals and fertilizers in the above cultivation period, frequency and purchase volume, etc., it is difficult to believe that the above assertion by the Plaintiff is

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for reduction or correction of capital gains tax on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-farmland

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.