It is also justifiable that the plaintiff could not be deemed as a self-employed person for not less than eight years, and calculated by converting it into acquisition value.

The disposition of this case that the Plaintiff imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff is legitimate, since it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had cultivated vegetables, etc. directly on the land at issue for not less than eight years, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, and it is reasonable to calculate

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

2013Guhap73 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

○ Head of tax office

January 8, 2014

February 5, 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 imposition of capital gains tax on December 5, 2012 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, along with BB on June 14, 1999, purchased ○○○○○○○○ Dong (hereinafter “163 land before division”) prior to ○○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 24, 199 with respect to 662/2346 shares of the above land for the Plaintiff’s future, and on June 24, 199, BB completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the above trading in the BB. Meanwhile, BB completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 19, 199 with respect to 52/2346 shares of the above shares of the said land owned by it on August 19, 199.

B. On June 14, 2002, the land prior to subdivision was divided into 00 square meters prior to ○○○○○ Dong, ○○○-dong, and 453 square meters prior to ○○○○-dong, and 524 square meters prior to ○○-dong, the same ○-dong, and 631 square meters prior to ○○-dong, and 178 square meters prior to ○○-dong, respectively.

C. On October 25, 2002, the Plaintiff, BB, and CCC shared co-owned property as to each of the above lands. On December 12, 2002, 202, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 12, 2002 as to the 31/178 shares out of ○○ Land and ○○ Land (hereinafter referred to as “instant both lands”).

D. On August 12, 2010, the Plaintiff sold the key land to DD to ○○○○○○○, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of DD on the same day.

E. 1) The Plaintiff’s tax base of capital gains tax in 2010 following the transfer of key land on October 15, 2010

The former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10310, May 25, 2010) upon filing a preliminary return

For the purpose of Article 69 (1) of the Act, the full reduction of the capital gains tax to 000 won calculated by applying the long-term possession special tax and the general tax rate on the ground that it falls under the "self-Cultivating farmland for not less than eight years"

The Office was Cheong.

2) The director of ○○○ Regional Tax Office performed a business audit against the Defendant, and ordered the Defendant to take a disposition to deny the Plaintiff’s application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, deeming that the pertinent land does not fall under farmland at the time of transfer, and that the Defendant denied the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-owned farmland for at least eight years on August 1, 2012, and notified the Plaintiff of the result of taxation prior to imposing capital gains tax for the taxable year 2010 for the

3) On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for pre-assessment review with the director of ○○ Regional Tax Office on August 31, 2012. On September 25, 2012, the director of ○○ Regional Tax Office re-examineed whether the pertinent land was farmland at the time of transfer and whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated the pertinent land for at least eight years, and decided to calculate the tax base and tax

4) Accordingly, on December 5, 2012, after re-auditing the Plaintiff’s capital gains tax reduction and exemption, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption for self-Cultivating farmland under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (eight years or longer), and notified the transfer value to ○○○○○○, and the acquisition value to ○○○○○○○, converted acquisition value (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Facts that there is no dispute for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 5, and the pleading before the pleading.

The purpose of body

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff directly cultivated milk, shoulder, bean, etc. on the key land for at least eight years from the time of acquiring the key land from the time of transfer to the time of transfer. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

2) Even if the Plaintiff failed to meet the self-sufficiency requirements for not less than eight years, the Plaintiff purchased the purchase price for the shares of ○○○○○, which the Plaintiff purchased from EE, out of the land before subdivision, by setting the purchase price for the shares that the Plaintiff purchased from EE, and thus, in calculating the transfer income tax on the Plaintiff (EE paid the purchase price for KRW 00 million on the day of the contract, and KRW 00 million on June 14, 199), the acquisition price of the pertinent land should be based on the actual transaction price of KRW 00,00,000, which is the actual transaction price. Therefore, the instant disposition that calculated

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the assertion that direct cultivation was conducted for not less than eight years

A) Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "The tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the transfer income tax shall be reduced or exempted for the income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the land subject to agricultural income tax, which is directly cultivated by a resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of farmland for not less than eight years." Article 66(13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22356, Aug. 25, 2010) provides that "direct cultivation" in Article 69(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22356, Aug. 25, 2010) means that the

section 2(5) of the Farmland Act provides that "the cultivation means cultivation," while subparagraph 5 of section 2 of the Farmland Act provides that "the cultivation means cultivation."

farmer is constantly engaged in the cultivation of crops or the growing of perennial plants on his own farmland.

Provisions that "the cultivation or cultivation of not less than 1/2 of farming work with his own labor" means the cultivation or cultivation with his own labor.

section 30.

As above, Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act declares the land directly cultivated for not less than eight years as the object of exemption from capital gains tax and delegates the specific scope to the Presidential Decree, and Article 66(13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act specifies the meaning of "direct cultivation" as the same content as the self-regulation provision under Article 2(5) of the Farmland Act.

Therefore, the meaning of "direct farming" as a requirement for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax should be determined depending on whether 1/2 or more of "one-half or more of the farming work" has been cultivated directly with his/her own labor by interpreting Article 66 (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010). The burden of proof for such direct farming is against a taxpayer who asserts reduction or exemption of capital gains tax (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu639, May 22, 190).

B) In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the health team, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6’s respective descriptions and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the instant case, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff cultivated milk, etc. directly on the land at issue for not less than eight years, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(1) From September 25, 198 to February 28, 2007, the Plaintiff engaged in wholesale and retail business with the trade name "FFF" in ○○○○○○ multi-household ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○,” respectively.

(2) The key land was first registered in the farmland ledger on February 27, 2002, and was registered as the farmland ledger on February 15, 2006. Re-registered as farmland cultivated on November 17, 2009 and as the farmland ledger, the Plaintiff’s cultivation period is only four years and nine months.

(3) The Plaintiff did not specifically state the method of cultivation, yield, and the method of disposing of harvested material, etc., while asserting that it cultivated milk, etc. on the key land at the time of the tax investigation.

The confirmation letter of farmland cultivation (4) submitted by the Plaintiff was prepared more than two years after the Plaintiff sold the pertinent land, and its contents were also abstractly stated on the ground that the Plaintiff sold the land to the first time in October 2008 and that dry field was reed in 2009.

(5) There is no specific agreement on the disposal of agricultural produce on the key land made between the Plaintiff and DD under the sales contract.

2) As to the criteria for calculation of acquisition value

In the calculation of gains on transfer, Article 97(1)1 of the Income Tax Act provides that the acquisition value as necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value shall be based on the actual transaction value incurred in the acquisition of assets, and where it is impossible to confirm it, it shall be the transaction example, appraisal value, or conversion value prescribed by Presidential Decree. The actual transaction value, which is the basis for the calculation of gains on transfer, refers to the amount of actual agreement for the payment itself or at the time of the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du7171, Apr. 26, 2007).

With respect to this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and BB agreed on the purchase price of the part of the key land owned by the Plaintiff at the time of the purchase of the ○○○○ land prior to the division, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, and it constitutes a case where the actual transaction price cannot be confirmed at the time of the acquisition of the key land. Therefore, the disposition of this case, which the Defendant imposed capital gains tax by calculating the conversion price of the key land as the acquisition price of the land at issue and imposing capital gains tax, is lawful, and therefore, the Plaintiff’

3. Conclusion

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