In order to reduce self-defense, at least 1/2 of the farming work must be cultivated with its own labor;

It is not sufficient to recognize that the production evidence alone has cultivated or cultivated not less than 1/2 of farming work with his own labor.

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

Changwon District Court 2018Gudan11600 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Capital Gains Tax

leap

00. Head of tax office

January 23, 2019

February 20, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff

Cheong-gu Office

Disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000,458,114 on the Plaintiff on June 11, 2017, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 000,458,114.

(b) revoke the subsection (3).

A. On August 4, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired 0,209 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) in Do-dong, Chungcheongnam-si, Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, and transferred the same on February 24, 2016, and made a preliminary return on the transfer income tax to the Defendant on April 30, 2016 to the effect that the transfer income tax is reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 69 (8) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. On June 11, 2017, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of capital gains tax of KRW 000,458,114 (including additional tax) for the year 2016 on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land” to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On July 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 24, 2017, but the ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on February 22, 2018. [Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence No. 1, Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff actually cultivated the land of this case. The disposition of this case, which was made on a different premise, is unlawful as it misleads the fact.

B. Determination

(1) Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 14390, Dec. 20, 2016) provides, “The tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted on income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree, among the land cultivated directly by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of farmland for not less than eight years by means prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 66(13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27848, Feb. 7, 2017) provides, “Direct farming” means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland or cultivating or growing them with his/her own labor for not less than half of farming work.” The burden of proof on the direct farming of the land transferred for not less than eight years at the seat of the farmland lies in the person liable to pay capital gains tax (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da19694, Apr. 196, 1996).

(2) Therefore, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the overall purport of testimony and pleading of the public health belt, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 6, the witness Hanaa, Leebb, and Kim Cc, the plaintiff served as the president of the Education Center for the Protection of 000 from 2004, and since 2013, "00 long-term care institutions" were engaged in multiple services related to the medical care center, such as operation of "0 long-term care institutions," and it is not deemed that there was sufficient enough ability to do so for a long period. ② The plaintiff is currently 83 years of age and is 0,000 km away from the plaintiff's domicile (Y-dong, Busan, Busan, 00-dong, 00-dong), and the land of this case is 20 to 30 km away from the plaintiff's domicile (Y-dong, Busan, 00-dong). The plaintiff's assertion that from time to time, the cultivation of the land of this case was not carried out until 2010 meters or more.

3. Conclusion

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