Cho High-depth 201Gu0564 ( October 28, 2011)

It is recognized that farmland has been directly cultivated for not less than eight years.

It is reasonable to deem that the transferred land was directly cultivated in light of the letter of confirmation of residents who confirmed the cultivation, agricultural chemicals, and fertilizer purchase, etc., although most of the period of possession of the land was a school or other occupation, it is sufficiently possible to directly cultivate the weekend in light of the area of the land.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

2011Guhap2271 Disposition of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax, etc.

Sector XX

Racing Head of the Tax Office

January 18, 2012

February 22, 2012

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 28,441,740, and special rural development tax 1,558,010 against the Plaintiff on November 8, 2010 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The decision is as follows (However, the date of disposition and the amount of capital gains tax in the complaint's claim are deemed to be a clerical error, and the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 29,99,750 which the plaintiff seeks cancellation shall include imposition of KRW 1,558,010 for special rural development tax).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 12, 200, the Plaintiff acquired 00 m2,89 m20 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) in the documents in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-do (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”), and transferred the same on July 21, 2009 (transfer value 271,90,000 won).

B. The Plaintiff reported that there was no amount of capital gains tax payable pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff made a preliminary return of tax base of capital gains for the year 2009 upon the transfer of the instant land, and for the reason that the said return was made for more than eight

C. On November 8, 2010, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 28,441,740, special rural development tax of KRW 1,558,010 on the Plaintiff for the reason that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for at least eight years (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 10, each entry of Eul evidence 1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The Parties’ arguments are as follows:

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff actually carried out rice farming directly from the land in this case for not less than 8 years. The defendant, from March 199 to February 2, 2001, had OO University located in Samsung-si, Magu University located in Daegu-si, from March 2001 to February 2, 2003, and had been employed in △△ City located in Daegu-si in 2003, and had been employed until now. The plaintiff's workplace and domicile are approximately 20 km away from the land in this case as a straight line, and the late AA, the plaintiff's attached, received subsidies for rice income preservation from 2004 to 2009. In light of these circumstances, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff could not be deemed to have cultivated the land in this case.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. According to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66(1), (4), and (13) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in order for a transferor to be eligible for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, the transferor must directly cultivate the farmland while residing in a Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland is located, a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto, an area within a Si/Gun/Gu, or an area within a 20km radius from the farmland in question, or an area within a 20km radius from the farmland in question, and the "direct cultivation" means that the transferor is engaged in cultivating the crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland, or cultivating or cultivating more than half of the farming works using his/her own labor.

B. Since the Plaintiff had resided in the area within the Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the location of the land or the Si/Gun/Gu for not less than eight years, there is no dispute between the parties, it is deemed that the Plaintiff was engaged in the “direct farming” of the instant land, i.e., whether the Plaintiff was engaged in the “direct farming” of the instant land, or cultivated or cultivated 1/2

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land in light of the following circumstances: (a) evidence Nos. 1 through 3-2, 6-1, 2, 8-2, 3, 15-2, 3, 15-1, and 6-3; and (b) evidence Nos. 6-1 through 3; and (c) evidence Nos. 6-1 through 3; and (b) evidence Nos. 1 through 3; and (c) evidence Nos. 6-2, 3, 15, and KimCC

(1) Until September 15, 2003, the Plaintiff resided in Ulsan-gun two documents of Ulsan-gun 000, and from September 15, 2003, the Plaintiff resided in the Y apartment located in the Y apartment located in the Y apartment located in the Y apartment located in the PY apartment located in the racing-si. The above 000 is located in the vicinity of the instant land, and the distance from the said apartment to the instant land is about 18.85 km and the time taken by the automobile is not more than 30 minutes.

(2) The area of the instant land is 2,89 square meters (around 877 square meters) and the annual use of agricultural machinery is ten (10) days of rice farming workers, so even if engaged in another occupation, mixed farming can be conducted using agricultural machinery.

(3) The Plaintiff had the OO University located in Seocho-si from February 2, 2001, and had it at night from March 2, 2001 to February 2, 2003, and had been enrolled in △△ University located in Daegu-si from Jun. 10, 2003, and had been working until now. As the Plaintiff acquired the instant land, it is sufficiently possible for the Plaintiff to directly cultivate the instant land during the period from the time of acquiring the instant land to the time of transferring it.

(4) It is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s father’s feasia was a mixed farmer on June 2007, because it is not good to the health of knee-gu or spine, such as being diagnosed with knee-free knee-shnee-she-shne.

(5) The Plaintiff, 26 residents located in XX, with the land of this case, directly cultivated the land of this case.

(6) At the time of pesticide sale, KimD and KimE, the Plaintiff has purchased agrochemicals from 2000 to the present date, and the head of the two divided agricultural cooperatives, around 1998, prepared a confirmation that the Plaintiff was an associate member of the Agricultural Cooperatives, and purchased agrochemicals, fertilizers, etc.

(7) Although the Plaintiff’s subsidiaries applied for direct payments compensating for rice income from the instant land from 2004 to 2009, “Act on the Compensation for Rice Income, Etc.” does not constitute a direct payment requirement for direct payments for the purpose of protecting rice itself and stabilizing the income of farmers, etc.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.