8 Not subject to reduction or exemption for the year

The disposition of imposition is legitimate on the ground that the plaintiff cannot be recognized that he had been engaged in the cultivation of crops in the farmland in this case at all times or has cultivated not less than half of farming work with his own labor.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2013Gudan718 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Capital Gains Tax

JAA

Head of the High Tax Office

January 20, 2014

February 21, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of OOO on November 9, 2012 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. On July 23, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired an OO-dong 235-1 Doo-dong 235-1 Doo-2 235-2 Doo-7 Doo-dong 235-2 Doo-dong 2347 Doo-dong (hereinafter “the instant farmland”), and transferred the said farmland on December 9, 201, and (b) on February 7, 2012, the Plaintiff reported the Defendant on the ground that the instant farmland constitutes one of the self-farmlands around eight years under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

C. The Defendant, on November 9, 2012, deemed that the instant farmland does not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption for eight years, deemed that it did not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption for one year, issued a correction and notification of the OOOO in the capital gains tax for the year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff.” [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant did not dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was donated by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff that it was no longer possible to cultivate the farmland any longer due to the Plaintiff’s death near the farmland of this case, and had been cultivated directly from that time. Although the Plaintiff worked as an employee of the Plaintiff’s agricultural cooperative, the Plaintiff cultivated the farmland of this case, which fell short of 8.63 km from the said workplace, due to the Plaintiff’s retirement from 1:2:0 p.m. to 2:0 p.m., and purchased the Plaintiff directly from the said workplace. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s exemption from capital gains tax was met for eight years, and the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

According to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013) and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24368, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same), a transferor, as a requirement for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, shall reside in the Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland is located or in the area within the Si/Gun/Gu, or within 20 kilometers in straight line from the farmland, and shall directly cultivate the land for eight years or longer from the time of its acquisition until he/she transfers the land to another rural farmer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da24368, Feb. 15, 2013). The purport of the "farmland" is that, even if the transferor transfers the land to a self-employed farmer, he/she is exempt from capital gains tax for a long period of time, or is presumed to have been exempt from capital gains tax for more than 1 year.

2) Determination

In other words, the following circumstances revealed through the statement of Nos. 2 through 3, the witness testimony and the overall purport of the pleading, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff was serving in D Food as at the time of acquiring the farmland in this case and has been serving as BB agricultural cooperatives; (ii) the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was serving not later than 4 p.m. in the lower season and can be retired at 1 p.m. and 2 p.m.; (iii) the working conditions such as working hours are difficult to believe the Plaintiff’s assertion without submitting regulations or labor contract; and (iv) in light of that the farmland in this case is a field with a size of not less than 2,036m., it is difficult for employees to believe that the Plaintiff could cultivate the farmland in this case by using time after weekend and retirement; and (iv) the witnessCC from this court to prove self-defense has operated a separate business, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have any other evidence to recognize that the Plaintiff had any witness cultivation in this case’s farmland in this case, even if the Plaintiff did not present his testimony.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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