The early high-2014-The Middle-5838

Whether the Plaintiff has excavated the land of this case

The Plaintiff asserted that he cultivated the instant land directly, and did not completely indicate which crops were cultivated on the instant land. Since the Plaintiff failed to submit objective materials as to whether he had been a rice farmer in the instant land, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for not less than eight years is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing this is without merit.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Incheon District Court 2015Gudan575 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Capital Gains Tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

November 24, 2015

January 26, 2016

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 2, 1983, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 6,670 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to the OO of O-Eup O-type, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of an agreement on the acquisition of land for public use in the name of CC on April 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction of capital gains tax on the ground that the Plaintiff owned the instant land for at least eight years, while filing a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains from the transfer of the instant land, and directly cultivated it.

B. On October 28, 2013, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer value of the instant land as KRW 2,207,485,780, and acquisition value as KRW 82,018,608 on March 3, 2014, on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land directly for at least eight years through a local confirmation (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 108,586,840, and special rural development tax for the year 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On October 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on December 31, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 6, Eul 1 and 4 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the acquisition of the instant land, the Plaintiff resided around about 25 years in the vicinity of the instant land, and entered the farmland ledger issued by the OOO of OO into the farmland ledger that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land, and in light of the fact that village residents prepared and delivered a letter of well-fresh guarantee confirming that the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land directly, the instant disposition was unlawful even if the Plaintiff was recognized as having cultivated the instant land for not less than eight years.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015) and Article 66(1) and (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015), in order to have capital gains tax reduced or exempted, a person must directly cultivate the relevant farmland while residing within a Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant farmland is located for at least eight years, within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the relevant farmland location, or within a 20km radius from the relevant farmland. In this case, the term “direct cultivation” means that a resident engages in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own land or growing or growing them with his/her own labor. Therefore, the meaning of “one-2 or more self-help labor force” should be interpreted as one of the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on his/her own land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20100Du494.

2) In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

○○ The period during which the Plaintiff acquired and owned the instant land was about 30 years, and the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land without specifying the period for which the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land. If the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for about 30 years, it is not easy to understand that the Plaintiff had directly cultivated the instant land during that period in light of the details of resident registration changes as indicated in the following table, inasmuch as the Plaintiff was a woman born on April 2, 1924 at the time of acquisition, 59 years old at the time of acquisition, and 89 years old at the time of transfer.

○ The Plaintiff asserted that he directly cultivated the instant land and did not completely indicate what crops were cultivated on the instant land. If the instant land had a rice shed, the Plaintiff did not periodically purchase necessary goods, such as fertilizers and agricultural chemicals, harvested rice produced on the instant land, and did not submit objective materials on how to dispose of the rice produced from the instant land through the milling work, as well as on how to store and manage agricultural materials, etc. necessary for the rice shed.

○○ received rice direct payments from 2002 to 2008 on the grounds that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land during the period in which the Plaintiff owned the instant land.

○ As above, the letter of confirmation of draft DD receipt of subsidies for rice subsidies states that the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land in succession by EE (Plaintiff’s South-North dynamics of the Plaintiff), FF, GG, and H, other than the Plaintiff, after acquiring the instant land. From 1995 to 2009, it stated that the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land and paid the Plaintiff a rice of 9 kilograms (80 kilograms per piece 1 mama) each year to the Plaintiff as farmland rent.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for at least eight years is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.