early 2010 Heavy2594 ( November 11, 2010)

Measures to exclude the reduction or exemption of land without direct cultivation are legitimate.

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff who was over 60 years of age at the time of acquiring land due to excessive distance between residence and land was engaged in the cultivation or cultivation at all times, and that a third party reports to the relevant authorities that received subsidies from the rice shed after the disposition of imposition, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff directly cultivated land.

2011Guhap1574 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

○ Head of tax office

July 13, 201

August 17, 201

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 76,569,611 against the Plaintiff on January 6, 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From around 1968, the Plaintiff had been residing with 000 ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○○, which was the husband. On February 19, 2000, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 3,972 square meters of △△△△△, △△△△, △△△, △△△, △△, △△, and transferred the land to △ on December 22, 2008.

B. (1) On February 20, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction of KRW 20,627,334 with the Defendant for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax amounting to KRW 174,00,00 and KRW 51,911,602 by filing a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains belonging to the year 2008 for the transfer income belonging to his own farmland under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

(2) On January 6, 2010, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for reduction and exemption on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land, and applied 60% of the heavy tax rate to the land for non-business use, and corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax for the year 2008 as KRW 76,569,611 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 26, 2010 on April 2, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on November 11, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 11, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, 3, and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff resided in ○○○○○○-si, ○○○○○○○○○, which was linked to the location of the instant land, from around 1968, and was directly engaged in farming activities on the instant land, and was supported by her husband, EA, and EB only for 2 and 3 years prior to the transfer of the instant land. As such, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff’s self-reliance was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9276 of Dec. 29, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax on Self-Cultivating Farmland)

(1) With respect to the income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by the Presidential Decree, which is directly cultivated by the resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree residing in the location of such land for not less than eight years [not less than three years where such farmland is subject to the direct payment subsidy prescribed by the Presidential Decree (including those subject to non-taxation, reduction and exemption, and small collection) by not later than December 31, 2010 to the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation under the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act, which is a corporation prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter referred to as the "agricultural corporation" in this Article), and which is prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the capital gains tax shall be reduced

(3) Any person who intends to be subjected to paragraph (1) shall apply for tax abatement or exemption as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307 of Feb. 4, 2009) Article 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

(12) For the purpose of Article 69 (1) of the Act, the term “direct cultivation” means that a resident is engaged in cultivating the crops or growing perennial plants on his own farmland at all times or carrying out at least half of farming works for cultivating or growing them with his own labor.

C. Determination

The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated crops or cultivated perennial plants in the instant land.

According to the statement 3, 4, and 5 of this case, the Plaintiff’s 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, and 3, 4, and 5 of this case’s agricultural production direct payments for the following reasons: (a) the Plaintiff’s 20-year agricultural production-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland purchase-related farmland of 922, 152-2, 3, 736 square meters; (b) it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff had been 10-year agricultural production-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage-related farmland usage.

3. Conclusion

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