The Plaintiff may not be deemed to have been engaged in the cultivation of crops on the land of large land at all times or have cultivated not less than 1/2 of the farming work with his own labor.

The plaintiff's main occupation seems to have been an employee of the Agricultural Cooperatives, and it seems that there was a limit to the time to cultivate substitute land in light of working hours, income, etc., and it is difficult to see that the substitute land was cultivated by seedlings or spawn, etc. because it was a miscellaneous plant.

Daejeon District Court 2016Gudan100821 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

00

00. Head of tax office

October 26, 2017

November 30, 2017

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 capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2013 against the Plaintiff on November 19, 2015 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 5, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired 00 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “previous land”) on the ground of donation, and acquired 797 m2,00 m2,00 m2,000 on April 29, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “large land”) on December 10, 2013 after transferring it on the ground of donation.

B. The Plaintiff reported capital gains tax to the Defendant by applying reduction and exemption pursuant to Article 70 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning Tax Restriction (amended by Act No. 12173, Jan. 1, 2014) on the ground that he/she directly cultivated the previous land and substitute land. However, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and notification of KRW 000 of capital gains tax for the Plaintiff on November 9, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate by providing labor for more than 1/2 of farming work from substitute land for more than three years (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On February 17, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on May 16, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff had resided in the previous land and substitute land for not less than three years and cultivated crops directly. Thus, the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, in order to apply capital gains tax reduction and exemption under Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the Plaintiff must directly cultivate in the previous land and substitute land for not less than three years. The term "direct cultivation" means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his own land or growing or growing them with his own labor, and as long as he is engaged in the direct farming, even if he concurrently engages in other occupation, it does not constitute direct cultivation, but it does not constitute an indirect cultivation with reliance on other occupation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du844, Oct. 11, 2002). The burden of proof as to the direct farming of farmland subject to capital gains tax reduction and exemption lies in a person who claims capital gains tax reduction and exemption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 194).

In full view of the following circumstances, as to whether the Plaintiff cultivated the substitute land directly, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the substitute land for three years or longer by engaging in the cultivation of crops on the substitute land, or cultivating not less than 1/2 of the farming work necessary on the substitute land by using its own labor force, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

From December 10, 2013 to October 6, 2015, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of substitute land was working for 00 agricultural cooperatives from December 10, 2013 to October 6, 2015, in writing. The Plaintiff’s work-free day from February 10, 2013 to October 6, 2015. The Plaintiff’s work-free day was from September 9:0 a.m. to June 6:00 a.m., the income paid in agricultural cooperatives during the said period was an average of KRW 118,00,000 per year. The Plaintiff’s primary work appears to have been working for agricultural cooperatives, and there is a limit to paying time to cultivate substitute land in light of working hours

○ At the time of the Defendant’s on-site check-up work on the land located on September 16, 2015, maizes and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas and mas are planted

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the direct cultivation of substitute land for three years is without merit, and the instant disposition is lawful regardless of whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated the previous land for three years or more.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.