Early High Court Decision 201Du1726 ( October 23, 2011)

It is difficult to recognize as being a serious one for not less than eight years.

A public official shall not be deemed to have cultivated more than half of the farming work with his/her own labor in light of the fact that he/she works in land five times a month, but works in incidental work, such as a fluent and fluent season, and works in the case of agricultural machinery necessary for agricultural machinery, such as a fluent and fluent season, and paid money to others, and works in the case of fertilizer or pesticide roots

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2011Guhap1892 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Yellow AA

Chuncheon Director of the Tax Office

April 20, 2012

May 4, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 000 won in 2009 against the plaintiff on December 1, 2010.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 25, 1998, the Plaintiff acquired 00 00 00 m2 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) in writing in Chuncheon-si, and claimed that it is farmland sold to Do governor and one other on July 23, 2009, and sold it to Do governor and one other on September 30, 2009, and applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax.

B. On December 1, 2010, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for at least eight years, and thus, notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the transfer income tax reverted to year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On January 13, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 3, 201, but was dismissed on June 23, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 11-2, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff continued to grow directly after acquiring the instant land, but it is difficult for the Plaintiff to grow directly due to personal circumstances, and thereafter, it was leased to sulfurE from May 2006, and the Plaintiff was cultivated under the natural farming law. Since the Plaintiff was cultivated under the natural farming law, it was only not necessary to do so, such as farming machinery, fertilizers, and agrochemicals, and the instant disposition that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for eight years is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921 of Nov. 1, 2010) provides that income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the land which is subject to taxation of farmland shall be exempted from capital gains tax under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The burden of proof for the fact that the land transferred for not less than eight years has been located in the location of the land shall be the person liable to pay capital gains tax under the above provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu6293, Apr. 23, 1991; 2002Du7074, Nov. 22, 200). The plaintiff used 10, 300, 300, and 120, 34, and 34, and 34, and 30,000, 30,000,000 won or more, and the plaintiff used 3,000,000.

3. Conclusion

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