Whether a person is a farming child if he/she is employed as a faculty member of a university

The plaintiff, as a faculty member of a university, has assisted the farming of a sporadic and indirect sporadic sporadic sporadic spodic spodic spodic spodic spodic spods,

Article 58 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act shall exempt farming children from the gift tax on farmland donated.

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 KRW 139,725,390 on July 5, 2006 against the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 104,705,132 on July 5, 2006, which reverts to the Plaintiff on July 5, 2006). However, the amount is related to the farmland subject to exemption from gift tax among the disposition of imposition of KRW 139,725,390 on July 5, 2006, which eventually reduces part of the amount of the primary claim, and thus, it does not constitute a separate conjunctive claim).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 17, 2005, the Plaintiff received from ○○○○○○, a donation of land on 13 lots, including nine parcels, including the total sum of 8,452 square meters of farmland (hereinafter “instant farmland”), ○○○○, ○○-dong, ○-○, 907 square meters, etc. (hereinafter “instant donation”).

B. On November 18, 2005, the Plaintiff applied for exemption of KRW 142,865,706 for gift tax on the farmland in this case to the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s farmland constitutes the farmland donated to the Plaintiff, who is a farming child by the above ○○○, a self-employed farmer, on the grounds that the farmland in this case falls under the farmland donated to the Plaintiff, as provided by Article 15(2) of the Addenda of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Act No. 5584, Dec. 28, 1998) and Article 58(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 5584, Dec. 28, 1998).

C. However, on July 15, 2006, the Defendant imposed a gift tax of KRW 162,938,349 on the land of the said 13 lots, including the instant farmland, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any own self-fluence on the instant farmland as ○ University faculty members, since the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for farming children under Article 25(1) of the Act and Article 57(2) and (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

D. The Defendant corrected the Plaintiff’s deductible amount from KRW 659,867 to KRW 14,946,437, and withdrawn the imposition of additional tax amount of KRW 14,286,576, which was initially imposed, thereby correcting the amount of gift tax to KRW 139,725,390, and notified the Plaintiff of the disposition of imposition of KRW 139,725,390, which remains after the correction of reduction (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff worked as a faculty member at a university, the Plaintiff constitutes a farming child under Article 57(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, so long as he/she directly cultivated the farmland of this case under the name of ○○ and under the name of ○○, such as giving a contract to the owner of the agricultural machinery and equipment from around 1991, and processing the farmland before and after his/her attendance, leaving his/her work, weekend and vacation period, and cultivating the farmland of this case, the Plaintiff constitutes a farming child under Article 57(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 57(2) and (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15976, Dec. 31, 1998; hereinafter the same shall apply) stipulate that "agricultural children" are persons aged 18 or older as of the date of donation who reside in Si/Gun/Gu and are identical or connected with the location of farmland, etc. for more than two years before the date of donation, who are at least 18 years old as of the date of donation, and are engaged in direct farming, or who reside in the same Si/Gun/Gu as or connected with the location of farmland, etc..

The plaintiff was born to the head of ○○ University from 7:0 on March 4, 195 to 7: (a) around January 8, 1985; (b) around 0, 226-4 (the administrative district was changed to ○○○○○○○ University on May 10, 1995); (c) around 6: (d) around February 20, 1985, the plaintiff could not be deemed to have been residing together with the above agricultural cooperative; (d) around 6: (e) around 6: (e) around 0: (e) around 6: (e) around 6: (e) around 196: (e) around 6: (e) around 0, 195; (e) on the testimony that ○○ University had been working for ○○ University; and (e) (e) around 6:00, around 196; and (e) (e) on the day on which ○ University had been working for ○ University.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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