direct cultivation means that a resident engages in the cultivation in his own farmland at all times or engages in the cultivation or cultivation with his own labor not less than 1/2 of the farming work;

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had been engaged in the cultivation in the instant land at all times or had cultivated or cultivated not less than 1/2 of the farming work with the Plaintiff’s labor force.

Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Daejeon District Court 2015Gudan100626 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

OO

OO Head of the tax office

2016.05.26

oly 2016.23

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2014 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 29, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land to AA, etc. on May 8, 2014, and transferred the instant land to the Defendant on the OA, etc. on the following grounds: (a) on May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff: (b) on March 29, 2002, constituted one of the self-farmlands for eight years under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act; and (c) on May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff scheduled the preliminary return of the capital gains tax on the full reduction or exemption of the calculated tax amount of the OOE.

B. After conducting an on-site investigation from October 27, 2014 to November 5, 2014, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff did not constitute one’s own farmland for at least eight years on December 1, 2014; and (b) rendered a disposition of imposition of an OO of capital gains tax for the year 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection on February 27, 2015, but was dismissed on April 2, 2015, and filed an administrative appeal again on April 21, 2015, but was dismissed on June 30, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

On April 2002, the Plaintiff removed sub-peach tree from the land of this case, cut most of 350 peach tree seedlings, and removed all late in the same year. In 2003, the Plaintiff purchased 350 peach sub-peach tree by requesting pro-peach tree to be friendly in the early 2003. The Plaintiff cultivated the cryp tree from the surrounding area of the above sub-peach tree for food to the bB, and cultivated the crypryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp.

3. Determination of legality of the instant disposition

A. According to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015) and Article 66(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015), a resident shall directly cultivate the relevant farmland for at least eight consecutive years while residing in a Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant farmland is located, within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the relevant farmland location, or within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the relevant farmland location, or within a 20km radius from the relevant farmland, and a direct cultivation at this time means that a resident engages in cultivating or cultivating crops or growing them with his/her own labor by cultivating 1/2 or more of crops or growing them with his/her own labor (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du191381, Sept. 21, 2010).

B. In light of the following circumstances, the statements or images of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 8 (including paper numbers) submitted by the plaintiff, and the testimony of the CCC, which can be seen in light of the overall purport of the arguments in the health belt, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (including various numbers), and Eul evidence Nos. 2, 2, 3, and 4 (including paper numbers), are not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was engaged in cultivating diverse plants, such as cultivating crops, such as shoulders, or managing fruit trees, or cultivated or cultivated with the plaintiff's labor force for not less than 8 years from April 202, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, the defendant's disposition of this case based on this premise is legitimate.

(1) Even according to the Plaintiff’s above assertion, Liter work and tree nursery were cultivated or cultivated with the labor force of GB or Plaintiff’s pro-Japanese land (only if the Plaintiff paid money).

(2) DDR, as the former owner of the instant land, resides in the neighboring areas of the instant land, stated that there was no Plaintiff who formed a farmer’s house in the instant land.

(3) Since farming crops listed in the farmland ledger under the Plaintiff’s name are different from those claimed by the Plaintiff to have cultivated, the entry in the farmland ledger is inconsistent with the fact.

(4) From 2005 to 2011, the Plaintiff reported that the Plaintiff received an amount equivalent to KRW 00,000 from the OO andO every year.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.