early 208 Heavy0939 (O2, 2008.06.12)

Whether it falls under the requirements for reduction of farmland substitute for farmland

It is difficult to recognize that the direct cultivation, which is the requirement for reduction of or exemption from farmland substitute land, should be proven by the claimant, and it is difficult to recognize that he/she had cultivated 1/2 or more of the direct cultivation or farming work in his/her own labor in view of the fact that he/she continued to work as a earned income earner for a considerable period

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

Article 70 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax on Substitute Land for Farmland)

Article 67 (Requirements, etc. for Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax on Substitute Land for Farmland)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s rejection of correction of KRW 79,038,796 of the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on December 28, 2007 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 7, 1988, the Plaintiff acquired 4192 square meters of ○○-dong, Incheon, ○○○-dong, 680-○, 4192 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On December 30, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to Korea Land Corporation and Incheon Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation in KRW 1,057,781,333 according to the agreement and sales contract.

B. On January 15, 2007, the Plaintiff paid capital gains tax of KRW 132,535,798 to the Defendant on the scheduled return of tax base of capital gains tax for the year 2006 following the transfer of land in this case. On March 30, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired 633-○○dong, Incheon ○○-dong 633-○○, 1,710 square meters (hereinafter “the substitute farmland in this case”) and filed a request for correction to the effect that the Plaintiff would be exempted from capital gains tax under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the ground that he transferred the land to substitute for the purpose of farming and acquired the substitute farmland in this case, on the ground that he acquired the substitute farmland in this case.

C. On December 28, 2007, the defendant continued to have earned income from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is in the long distance between his domicile and the land of this case, and thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been engaged in the cultivation of crops or the growing of perennial plants in the land of this case at all times or to have cultivated or cultivated more than half of the farming work with his own labor, and thus, the plaintiff's request for correction of transfer income tax was rejected.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8 and 9-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff resided in the Incheon ○○-gu, which is adjacent to the Incheon ○○-gu, where the land of this case is located, and directly cultivated the land of this case during the weekend or vacation period, while working as a company at the ○○○○ Automobile Co., Ltd., which is located in the land of this case. Therefore, it is unlawful for the Defendant to take the instant disposition even

(b) Related statutes;

Article 70 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax on Substitute Land for Farmland)

Article 67 (Requirements, etc. for Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax on Substitute Land for Farmland)

C. Determination

(1) Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and Article 67(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620, Feb. 22, 2008) stipulate that capital gains tax exemption for farmland substitute land shall be reduced or exempted by the requirement that the resident directly resided in the previous farmland for not less than three years and directly cultivates, that is, he/she engages in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants in his/her own farmland or cultivated or cultivated at least half of farming with his/her own labor.

However, the direct cultivation of farmland is the burden of proving it by the claimant (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 1994). The principle of strict interpretation derived from the principle of no taxation without law applies not only to the cases meeting the taxation requirements, but also to the cases meeting the requirements of non-taxation and tax reduction or exemption. As such, it is applicable to the cases meeting the requirements of no-taxation which are favorable to the taxpayer, and it is also applicable to the cases meeting the requirements of no-taxation and tax reduction or exemption as favorable to the taxpayer without any justifiable reason, and thus, it shall not be permitted since it constitutes a result contrary to the principle of no-taxation, which is the basic ideology of the tax law (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da1916

(2) In light of the above legal principles, as evidence that the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land directly, there are statements in Gap evidence Nos. 9 through 18, and testimonys in witness Kim-○, and Cho-dae, each of which is evidence that corresponds to the fact that the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land directly.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 7-1 and Eul evidence Nos. 7-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, i.e., from April 13, 1987, the plaintiff served as company members at ○○ Automobile Co., Ltd. at ○○○ 202 at the present value, and the plaintiff's domicile was in a long distance from the land of this case for a long time from the land of this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is ordinarily engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants in the land of this case or cultivating or cultivating them with his own labor not less than half of them. There is no evidence

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been engaged in the cultivation of crops or the growing of perennial plants on the instant land at all times, or who have cultivated or cultivated more than half of the farming work with his own labor.

Conclusion

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