Suwon District Court 2010Guhap219 ( October 22, 2010)

early 209 Heavy3121 ( October 20, 2009)

The argument that all farmland was cultivated on holidays and holidays while working in another workplace shall not be accepted.

Even if a person works in the form of day, day, night, night, and holiday at a five-day, his/her assertion that he/she cultivated all farmland held on a holiday or holiday in an ordinary manner, and he/she cannot be deemed to have cultivated directly on the ground that he/she does not submit objective and direct data, such as seed and seedling necessary for cultivation, details of purchase of fertilizers, etc.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

쇠鹬 쇠지鹬 3000 쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지 3000

1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be lodged.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 116,294,90 for the plaintiff on May 12, 2009.

쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지지 3000

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in the entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 5, by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. On August 14, 1989, the Plaintiff received a donation of 168-1 1,626 m20 m2 (hereinafter “the farmland in this case”) from Korea, the father of which was the father of the Plaintiff, and transferred it to D on December 21, 2006.

B. On February 20, 2007, the Plaintiff, upon filing a preliminary return on the tax base of the transfer income tax for the year 2006 following the transfer of the farmland in this case, directly cultivated the farmland in this case for at least eight years, and filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010).

C. On May 12, 2009, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the farmland of this case for not less than eight years, and imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 116,294,990 for capital gains tax belonging to the year 2006 following the transfer of the farmland of this case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On August 6, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but on October 20, 2009, the said appeal was dismissed.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case, which the defendant reported differently, is unlawful, since he directly cultivated crops, such as worship, dancing, bean, and math in the farmland of this case from around 1989 to 2006.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

(1) Requirements for reduction of capital gains tax under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66(1) and (12) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620 of Feb. 22, 2008) provide that in order for the transferor to be eligible for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, the transferor shall be recognized as having resided in a Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland is located or in a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto, or in a Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland is located and cultivated directly for not less than eight years from the time of acquisition until the time of transfer, and "direct cultivation" means that the transferor is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants in his/her own farmland or cultivating or cultivating them with his/her own labor.

In this case, even if the fact that the land has been cultivated as farmland is recognized, it is not presumed that the owner of the land has been cultivated as farmland, and the fact that the land has been cultivated as farmland must be proved by the transferor who asserts such fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu11893, Jul. 13, 1993).

(2) Whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated the farmland of this case

We examine whether or not the plaintiff is engaged in the cultivation of "direct cultivation" in the farmland of this case, that is, the cultivation of crops or the growing of perennial plants, or whether or not the plaintiff has cultivated or cultivated 1/2 or more of the farming works with his own labor.

(A) According to Gap evidence Nos. 2, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 14, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and testimony by ChoF witness of the first instance court, the plaintiff was registered as a resident of GGG Si for over 20 years from the date of transfer of the farmland in this case to February 14, 2008, after the moving-in report was completed on March 8, 1985, which is the transfer date of the farmland in this case, to the Gyeonggi GGGun JH 343, which is the transfer date, and the fact that the plaintiff was registered as a resident of GG Si from 191 to 206, the plaintiff was written as a self-fluoring of the farmland in this case from 190 to 2006, the plaintiff was prepared as a quasi-fluoring statement of farmland in this case from 200 to 207, and the plaintiff was prepared as the residents of the village in this case, and the plaintiff was prepared as a quasi-fur of this case.

(B) However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings set forth in HS No. 1, No. 1, No. 2, No. 5, and No. 2, No. 8-1, No. 7, No. 98-2, No. 94, No. 974, No. 97, No. 965, no. 2, and No. 98, no. 96, no. 97, no. 96, no. 2, no. 96, no. 96, no. 96, no. 2, no. 96, no. 96, no. 2, and no. 94, no. 96, no. 2, no. 96, no. 1995; and

(C) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff, an engineer in Seoul Matro, had cultivated the farmland of this case on a five-day grace day after the Plaintiff’s repeated special service was completed at intervals of five days, is difficult to accept. ② The Plaintiff, from around 2004, worked as an engineer and worked as an engineer on a day-to-day and did not change the conditions for the Plaintiff to cultivate the farmland of this case directly on a day-to-day basis; ③ the Plaintiff was unable to submit objective evidence on the purchase details of agrochemicals, fertilizers, farming materials, etc. while holding the farmland of this case for over 17 years, or on the sales details of crops cultivated, including agricultural chemicals, fertilizers, and farming materials. ④ The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased part of the farmland of this case on a five-day basis because it was difficult to concentrate on the Plaintiff’s work as an engineer, and that it could not be viewed that there was farmland of this case on a different basis from the Plaintiff’s farmland of this case, or that there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had used the farmland of this case on a different basis from the Plaintiff’s farmland of this case.

D. Sub-determination

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the Plaintiff cultivated the farmland of this case for not less than eight years is without merit, and the disposition of this case is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.