Appellate Decision 201J 1642 (No. 28, 2011)

It is difficult to recognize 1/2 or more of farming work as having cultivated with his own labor;

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see that the previous farmland was cultivated directly for not less than three years in light of the fact that it is ordinarily engaged in the cultivation of crops or not less than 1/2 of the farming work with its own labor while operating the restaurant and the inn, it is difficult to see that the previous farmland was cultivated directly for not less than three years

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act for Substitute Land for Farmland

Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act: Requirements for Reduction and Exemption of Transfer Income Tax on Substitute Land

2011Guhap2826 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Park AA

Head of Changwon Tax Office

December 22, 2011

January 19, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of capital gains tax of 110, 284, and 650 won on the Plaintiff on December 1, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 28, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired 000-0 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2 (hereinafter “the instant farmland”). On May 25, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the instant farmland to LeeB and ParkCC on May 25, 2009, and on December 29, 2009, acquired 00 m2,790 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2.

B. The Plaintiff, upon filing a preliminary return on capital gains tax following the transfer of the instant farmland in the same year, filed an application for reduction or exemption under Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same) which is the provision on reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for the substitute farmland

C. On December 1, 2010, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 110,284,650 for the reason that the Plaintiff did not meet the self-sufficiency requirements under Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence Nos. 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

원고는 마을 이장인 황FF에게 모내기, 농약 살포, 추수 작업 등에 필요한 기계작업을 일부 부탁하고 품삯을 준 사실이 있을 뿐, 이 사건 농지를 3년 이상 직접 경작하다가 양도하였는데도 피고가 이와 달리 보고 한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67(1), (2) and (3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, where a person who directly cultivated farmland while residing in a location of previous farmland for not less than three years and acquired another farmland within one year (two years in cases of expropriation by consultation or expropriation under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for r Public Works Projects or under other Acts) from the date of transfer of previous farmland and cultivated it while residing in a new location of farmland for not less than three years, and where the area of new acquired farmland is not less than half of the area of farmland to be transferred or the value of the transferred farmland is not less than a third of the value of the farmland to be transferred, the tax amount equivalent to 10/100 of the transfer income tax on the transfer income accruing from substitute land is reduced

(2) Here, "direct farming" means that a resident is engaged in cultivating or cultivating crops or perennial plants on his own land at least 1/2 of them with his own labor. The previous Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act do not separately stipulate the concept of "direct farming", which is one of the requirements for exemption from capital gains tax, and the Supreme Court at that time interpreted that "direct farming" includes not only cases where a transferor cultivates plants but also cases where he employs another person under his own responsibility and account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du2465, May 30, 200; 94Nu96, Oct. 21, 1994; 200Da1629, Feb. 9, 206; 200Da16629, Feb. 1, 206; 200Da1273, Feb. 1, 206.

(3) 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 원고의 직접 자경 주장에 부합하는 듯한 증거로는 갑 2호증의 2, 3, 4, 갑 5호증이 있으나, 황FF과 김GG이 이전의 진술 내용을 번복하고 있어 믿기 어렵고, 오히려 갑 8 내지 14호증, 을 2, 3호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉，① 원고는 2001. 1. 5.부터 2007. 4. 25.까지는 창원시 의창구 OO동 000-0에서 'HH숯불갈비'라는 상호로 식당을 운영하였고, 2007. 4. 2.부터 현재까지는 황제장 여관을 운영하고 있는바, 원고가 위 식당 및 여관을 처와 같이 운영하여 이 사건 농지를 경작할 수 있는 여유가 있었다고 하더라도, 농업을 전업으로 하고 있는 경우와 달리 이 사건 종전토지에서 농작물 등의 경작에 상시 종사하거나 농작업의 2분의 1 이상을 자기의 노동력에 의하여 경작하였다고는 보기 어려운 점，② 원고의 주장에 따르더라도 원고는 농업에 필요한 장비를 거의 갖추고 있지 않으며, 모내기나 추수 때 대형농기계가 필요한 대부분의 작업은 황II에게 품삯을 지급하고 대신하게 한 점，③ 원고가 이 사건 농지에 대한 쌀직불금을 수령하기는 하였지만, 쌀직불금의 지급 요건과 조세특례제한법 제70조의 양도소득세 감면 요건은 서로 다르며, 현실적으로 쌀직불금의 수령자가 반드시 농지의 경작자라고 볼 수도 없는 점 및 앞서 살핀 '직접 경작'의 의미에 비추어보면 갑 6, 7, 8, 14호증의 기재만으로는 원고가 농작업의 2분의 1 이상을 자기의 노동력에 의하여 경작하였다는 점을 인정하기 어렵고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

(4) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, it is dismissed.