Cho Jae-chul201 Jeon 4742 ( December 21, 2011)

It is difficult to see that one-half or more of the farming works have been cultivated with his own labor;

It is difficult to deem that there was a limit to the time to cultivate land in the course of operating a business entity, and rice farming works were mostly conducted using machinery, and thus, a third party was not owned, so it is difficult to deem that 1/2 or more of the farming works were cultivated with his own labor.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Guhap340 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX

The Director of Budget Office

August 29, 2012

September 5, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on May 9, 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 4, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired 1/3 shares out of 4,594 square meters of land of Y 00-11 m2, 200-11 forest land in Jin-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant land”). On December 30, 2008, the Plaintiff re-transfered the instant land to Gin-gun on December 30, 200.

B. On January 13, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the transfer of shares pursuant to Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter “Special Taxation Act”) on the ground that the land of this case constitutes one of one’s own farmland for at least eight years when filing a preliminary return of capital gains tax on the Defendant.

C. On May 4, 2011, the Defendant rendered a disposition imposing capital gains tax of 000 won for the year 2008 by applying the heavy taxation rate on the land for non-business use to the Plaintiff, deeming it difficult to deem the Plaintiff to have depreciated the instant land for at least eight years.

D. On August 25, 201, the Plaintiff filed an objection to the imposition of capital gains tax, and revoked the excessive portion of the land for non-business use by the Daejeon Regional Tax Office on August 25, 201, and received a decision to dismiss the remainder of the claim. Accordingly, the Defendant issued a disposition to reduce or correct the capital gains tax contributed to the Plaintiff at KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

E. The Defendant dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 4, 201, but was dismissed on December 21, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Private Opinion without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case for not less than eight years, and the defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) The main content and principle of interpretation of the statute

Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "The tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the transfer income tax shall be reduced or exempted for the income accruing from the transfer of the land prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the land which is subject to the taxation of agricultural income tax, which is directly cultivated by the resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree residing in the location of such land for not less than eight years, and Article 66 (12) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21196 of Dec. 31, 2008) provides that "direct cultivation" in Article 69 (1) of the same Act means that "the resident is engaged in cultivating or cultivating the crops or perennial plants on his own land at all times or in cultivating or cultivating them with his own labor not less than half of the farming work."

Inasmuch as the expanded interpretation or analogical interpretation of the provisions of this title, without any justifiable reason, without any justifiable reason, leads to a result contrary to the principle of fair taxation, which is the basic ideology of the tax law, it shall be subject to the principle of strict interpretation derived from the principle of no taxation without law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du731, Apr. 12, 2002; 2005Da19163, May 25, 2006). The fact that the farmland subject to the requirements for tax abatement or exemption under the above provisions is a person who asserts it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu1893, Jul. 13, 1993; 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 1994).

2) Determination as to whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land

In light of the following circumstances as revealed in light of Gap's evidence Nos. 9 through 15, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including Serial Numbers), and each testimony of ParkbB, the plaintiff operated "O" in 2005, namely, 000 won in 206, 000 won in 207, and 00 won in 208, and 200 won in 208, the plaintiff did not have any limit to paying the time for cultivating the land in this case's 'OO'. Considering that the plaintiff's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ' '' '' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.

3. Conclusion

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