Incheon District Court 2008Gudan492 ( October 09, 2008)

Whether capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for self-employed farmland for eight years;

It is consistent with the factual basis that the plaintiff also 8 years old if the fact that only the nominal corporation's representative director was entered and there was a real manager, and that there was a separate manager is a reduction or exemption for the joint owner of farmland for 8 years.

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

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 58,083,490 on May 2, 2007 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the judgment of the court of the first instance, except where the defendant added the following judgments to the pertinent part, and therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The defendant's assertion

According to Article 66 (12) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act amended on February 9, 2006, the term "self-cultivation" means that a resident engages in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his own farmland at all times, or cultivating or cultivating 1/2 or more of crops with his own labor. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was employed in KKFra Co., Ltd. from 1996 to 2001, and received annual earned income, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff did not own the land of this case, and thus, the disposition imposing the transfer income tax of this case by the Defendant is lawful.

B. Determination

According to Gap evidence Nos. 11-1, 2, and 5-1 to 6 of evidence Nos. 5 and witness testimony of the court of first instance, the plaintiff received wage and salary income from 1996 to 2001 when the plaintiff's Dong PP who served as representative director as the plaintiff's Dong PP, working as the representative director, and on the other hand, the plaintiff continued to cultivate the land of this case from Dec. 1, 1996 to Apr. 2006 without any third party's aid while cultivating the Y, which is relatively less losses, together with the P which is the co-owner of the land of this case, from Dec. 1, 1996 to Apr. 206. Thus, according to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff has been recognized that the land of this case has been cut for more than 8 years. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.