Early High Court Decision 2012J 2317 (Law No. 112.06.29)

Whether the farmland has been reduced or exempted for 8 years under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

In light of the fact that a business of manufacturing aggregate land was operated, and the land of this case was written as a "lease" on the farmland ledger as to the land of this case, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been engaged in the cultivation of crops or the cultivation of perennial plants in the land of this case at all times or cultivated or cultivated with his own labor not less than 1/2 of the farming work.

Article 69 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

2012Gudan1799 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

BB Director of the Tax Office

July 23, 2013

August 20, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of the capital gains tax of 201 on January 10, 2012 imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. The Plaintiff, acquired on May 9, 1989, transferred the instant land to OOO-dong 103-1, 681 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the instant land") on January 24, 201, and filed a return of capital gains tax reduction or exemption on the ground that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years." B. On January 10, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of capital gains tax for the year 201 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for at least eight years on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption (hereinafter referred to as "the instant disposition").

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 2, 3, and Eul evidence 1

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since acquiring the instant land, the Plaintiff cultivated vegetables in the instant land by making use of flat holidays, and aggravated disease, such as high blood pressure, which was a branch of a disease, around March 2009, and even until leasing the instant land to KimCC, the Plaintiff 20 years or longer.

Therefore, the transfer income tax on the income accrued from the transfer of the land of this case should be reduced or exempted, so the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to the evidence No. 4, it is recognized that the plaintiff had resided in the land of this case for at least eight years, and that the plaintiff owned the land of this case for at least eight years as seen earlier.

However, according to the items in subparagraphs 1 and 3, 6, and 1 through 5, and the whole purport of the pleadings, and the plaintiff has operated a framework-market manufacturing business from January 3, 1992 to OOO-dong 1556-28 to DD industry company, and the reported amount of income is described as "lease" on the ground that the annual average amount of income is about OOOO, and that the land in this case is divided into farmland ledger on the land in this case's farmland ledger, and that the main certificates, the chairperson of the farmland in the jurisdiction of the land in this case, cultivated the land in this case, cultivated the land in this case, cultivated the land in the south of Y, and after the Park E died, the plaintiff made a statement that the plaintiff did not know.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on the land of this case at all times or cultivated or cultivated with his own labor not less than 1/2 of farming work.

Meanwhile, according to the records of evidence No. 6, it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case even though it is recognized that the plaintiff operated the above pelpel paper manufacturing business with his partner, and the entries of evidence No. 5, No. 2, and No. 8 are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for at least eight years does not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.