Appellate Decision 201J 0831 (Law No. 105,03)

It is difficult to recognize that there has been a serious depreciation in the transferred land for not less than eight years.

In light of the fact that the address requires considerable time and expenses to return from the transferred land to the original distance, that the area of the land is not a professional farmer or a person who is not a professional farmer, and that there is no objective evidence proving the fact of cultivation at all, etc., it is difficult to recognize it as being self-sufficient for not less than eight years from the transferred land.

2011Guhap2338 Disposition of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

XX Kim

Head of Changwon Tax Office

October 20, 2011

November 24, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 50,57,300 against the Plaintiff on November 5, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 23, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired and owned the same Ri 000-0 2,347 m2,347 m2 (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) such as Kimhae-si 00-0 m2,023 m2 of the same Ri 00-0 m2,023 m2. The Plaintiff transferred its ownership to the Republic of Korea (the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs) on the ground of an agreement on the acquisition of public land.

B. On February 16, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax on each of the instant land to the Defendant, and filed an application for tax reduction or exemption on the following grounds: (a) each of the instant land constitutes “self-arable farmland for at least eight years” under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter

C. However, on November 5, 2010, the Defendant excluded the application of the above reduction and exemption provisions, imposed capital gains tax of KRW 50,557,300 on the Plaintiff for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On February 22, 2011, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on February 22, 2011, but the said request was dismissed on May 3, 2000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

With the exception of approximately 300 square meters, which the Plaintiff had cultivated before the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant land, the Plaintiff cultivated capital reduction and meat, etc. while directly cultivating each of the instant land from May 2001 to December 4, 2009. However, even though the Plaintiff merely engaged in a side business as a side business during the remaining time when harvest is not good from each of the instant land, the instant disposition made on a different premise by the Defendant was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22037, Feb. 18, 2010) in order to be eligible for the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, the Plaintiff shall directly cultivate the farmland of this case while residing in the Si/Gun/Gu/Gu where the farmland of this case is located or adjacent thereto for at least eight years after the Plaintiff acquired the farmland of this case and directly cultivate the farmland of this case, namely, cultivating the crops or growing perennial plants, or cultivate or cultivate them with its own labor, and the Plaintiff shall bear the burden of proving such requirements.

(2) However, the following circumstances are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 10. ① The plaintiff engaged in the communications card sales business and health auxiliary food sales business from 202 to ever, and operated the functional health function Do and retail business on April 30, 2009. ② The plaintiff's address is 44-47 km away from each of the land of this case, so it requires considerable time and cost to return to each of the land of this case. ③ Since the area of each of the land of this case exceeds 4,74 m3,00 square meters in total, it is difficult to cultivate unless the plaintiff is a professional farmer, and ④ The plaintiff did not present all objective evidence proving that the plaintiff had received the farmland of this case from 200 years since 200, including evidence about the purchase of seeds, fertilizers, farming machinery, etc., and since each of the land of this case, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff had received the farmland of this case to 30 Ga from 27,2010.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.