8 The meaning of land cultivated directly in self-farmland for 8 years;

land directly cultivated shall include the case in which another person is employed and cultivated under his responsibility and account, not directly rice paddy, dry field, dry field, harvested, or harvested, but also the case in which another person is employed and cultivated under his responsibility and account. Even if a person directly engaged in farming is concurrently engaged in another occupation, it does not interfere with the above self-employed farmer.

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

Article 69 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

1. The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on January 10, 2007 against the plaintiff on the claim for reduction or exemption of KRW 13,826,170 for the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2005 is revoked.

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

The text is as follows (However, 13,826,00 won as stated in the purport of the claim seems to be a clerical error of KRW 13,826,170.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2-1, 2-1, 3-3, and 4-1 through 8 of evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2-2, 2-1, 3-3, and 4-1 through 8 of each

A. On November 16, 2005, the Plaintiff owned a 599m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) located in ○○-dong 427-3, ○○-dong, Goyang-si, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the above expropriation on November 24, 2005. The Plaintiff purchased the instant land on November 14, 1997 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 5, 1997.

B. After the transfer registration of the above ownership, the transfer income tax of 13,826,170 won was voluntarily reported and paid.

C. On June 13, 2006, with the knowledge that the amount equivalent to 100/100 of the capital gains tax is reduced or exempted in the case of self-arable farmland for not less than eight years, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to reduce or correct the tax base and tax amount, but the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for reduction or exemption on January 10, 2007, on the ground that the instant land does not constitute self-arable farmland for not less

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff completed the payment of the purchase price for the land of this case until November 5, 1997, and thereafter the land of this case was expropriated from that time until November 16, 2005, and thus, the transfer income tax following the transfer of the land of this case shall be exempted pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations. Although the date of acquisition of the land of this case shall be November 5, 1997, which is the date of payment under the relevant laws and regulations, the date of acquisition of the land of this case shall be deemed to be November 5, 1997, which is the date of payment under the relevant laws and regulations, the plaintiff refused the plaintiff's request for reduction or exemption due to the reason that the period of ownership of the land of this case was less than eight years as of the date of registration and the fact that the plaintiff's self-sufficiency is not recognized, and thus the disposition

(b) Related statutes;

Article 69 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

C. Determination

According to the provisions of Article 162 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17456 of Dec. 31, 2001), if the liquidation date is clear, the time of acquisition of property shall be the date the price is settled. In light of the above evidence No. 4-9, 10, 13-1, 2, 14-1, 2, and 14-1, and 14-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings in the witness's testimony, the plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase the land of this case from U.S. 1, 31, 197 to 5,500,000 won, from the deposit account under the name of the plaintiff 1,50,000 won, 5,000,000 won, and 97,000,000 won, which is 1,500,000 won, and 97,000,000 won,00 won,00.

In addition, Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act for not less than eight years, where a resident has cultivated the farmland for not less than eight years between the time of acquisition by residing in an area within a Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland is located or adjacent to, and the time of transfer from the time of acquisition. In addition, the land directly cultivated under Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall include not only the case where he directly cultivates, dry field, tending, and harvest, but also the case where he employs another person under his responsibility and account, even if he directly engages in another occupation, it is reasonable to deem that the above land constitutes the above self-employed farmer even if he concurrently engages in the above occupation, it is reasonable to recognize that the plaintiff's experience in acquiring the farmland from the above ○○○ ○○○ Ga, which is the farmland of this case, from the 11st, 2, 10, 15 through 18, and 13 of witness evidence or 3.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is deemed to meet the requirements for self-farmland for not less than eight years, which is subject to the reduction and exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act as to the instant land. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s request for correction of capital gains tax as above is unlawful even though it is justifiable.

Conclusion

Therefore, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff sought the cancellation of the illegal disposition of this case.