Transfer 2013-0164 ( October 24, 2013)

Whether the Plaintiff has self-covered the controversial farmland for at least eight years

It is difficult to confirm the fact that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is less than 8 years, and when considering the fact that the plaintiff has earned income while serving as a certified public accountant in an accounting firm, the disposition that the defendant denies the reduction of self-farmland and imposes capital gains tax is legitimate.

2013Gudan25316 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

xx

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

May 30, 2014

July 11, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's decision that the disposition of imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the plaintiff on July 1, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 10, 1982, the Plaintiff: (a) divided 00 square meters out of x Dong x Dong 195-4 000 square meters (hereinafter “instant land before the instant subdivision”); (b) the Seoul yeast-gu x Dong x 000-000 (hereinafter “instant land”); (c) was admitted to the Korea Rail Network Authority on x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. x. 20x; (d) reported transfer income tax on x. x. 8 years or longer under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) reported the instant land reduction or exemption of transfer income tax.

B. The defendant 20x.x.x. the plaintiff did not directly cultivate the land prior to the subdivision of this case.

In view of the fact that the transfer income tax belonging to the year 20x year was imposed on the Plaintiff (including additional tax of 000 won for unfaithful payment).

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for review with respect to the instant disposition x.x., however, 20x.x.x.x.x. respectively.

Facts that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

As the Plaintiff is a certified public accountant, from 20x to 20x, he directly cultivated 150 to 250 square meters among the land before subdivision of this case by using time that does not interfere with business affairs, such as weekends, while serving as an adviser of an accounting firm, and the remainder was cultivated by proxy through Kimz. The key land in this case is part of 150 to 250 square meters cultivated by the Plaintiff, and thus, the transfer income tax should be reduced or exempted pursuant to the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which constitutes farmland cultivated by the Plaintiff for at least eight years. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff voluntarily reported to the head of www-gu x.x.x.x.q. that the Plaintiff voluntarily cultivated the Plaintiff’s land 000 square meters prior to the instant subdivision.

2) With respect to the farmland of 000 square meters prior to the instant partition, the Plaintiff new farmland income amount as follows:

The decision was made.

· omitted-

3) The farmland ledger against the Plaintiff was drawn up with respect to 20x.x.x. x-dong x-dong 000-000 square meters.

4) The Plaintiff served as a certified public accountant from xxx to an accounting firm, and had considerable earned income as follows.

· omitted-

Each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings, of Gap's facts, Gap's 3, 4, 8 through 17, Eul's 2, and 3 (including each number, if any) without any dispute arising in recognition.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Form are as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Unless there are special circumstances, the plaintiff, who is a taxpayer, bears the burden of proving that he/she satisfies the requirements for exemption of capital gains tax because he/she falls under the "person residing and directly cultivated in the location of a location" under Article 69 (1) of

In addition, the legislative purpose of Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is to reduce the tax burden due to the transfer of farmland as part of the land farming policy, and is to promote agriculture and rural communities by reducing the tax burden of self-employed farmers for more than eight years (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2003Hun-Ba2, Nov. 27, 2003).

In full view of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned legal principles and legislative intent of evidence as seen earlier, the statement of evidence A19 through 25 (including each number), witness Kimzzzz witness’s testimony, and the overall purport of oral argument, the evidence submitted to this court alone cannot be acknowledged that the Plaintiff has self-recovered the land of this case for at least eight years, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Accordingly, the Defendant’s disposition

(1) A person liable to pay farmland tax under Article 213 of the former Local Tax Act shall grow or cultivate crops on the farmland.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s assertion itself does not mean that the reported amount of farmland income has been cultivated directly. Moreover, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, the Plaintiff does not support the Plaintiff’s self-defense solely on the basis of the details on which revenue was reported as to the entire land prior to the instant subdivision, since only 150 to 250 square meters, which is part of the land prior to the instant subdivision, and the area cultivated by Kimz is larger than the area cultivated by himself.

② According to Article 66(13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, “Direct farming” of farmland was “direct farming.”

The term "agricultural work" means the cultivation or cultivation with one-2 or more own labor force of the plaintiff. Considering the fact that the plaintiff, in addition to the work as a certified public accountant, has cultivated or cultivated a part of the land before the division of this case with one-half or more years' own labor force of the plaintiff for a period of time from the end of the week to the end of 2011, in addition to the work as a certified public accountant, it is difficult to recognize only the neighboring person's statement (the testimony of A19-1, 20-1, 21-1, 22-1, 22-1, and witness Kimz).

③ The farmland ledger against the Plaintiff was prepared on July 3, 2012.

④ Among each receipt submitted by the Plaintiff (No. 23-2 through 16), the remainder, excluding Kimz titles, does not have any material to support the formation and credibility of the petition, and it is insufficient to view that the document prepared in the name of Kimzz was prepared and submitted retroactively in the process of disputing the instant disposition.

⑤ The airline (A. 25) certificate submitted by the Plaintiff is the land before the instant subdivision (or the issues of the instant case).

On the 195-4 land remaining after the land is partitioned, plastic houses are installed, and therefore, even according to the plaintiff's assertion itself, some of the land before the division was cultivated to Kimz. Therefore, it is insufficient to prove the plaintiff's self-defense. Rather, it seems that this photograph alone does not distinguish between the cultivation of Kimz and the part of the plaintiff's self-defense.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.