Seoul High Court 2014Nu46517 ( October 30, 2014)

The early 2012 middle 5250

(C) Whether the Plaintiff’s farmland of this case was self-confisced for at least eight years

In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff continued to have earned income equivalent to the annual average of 41,606,000 won from the Plaintiff (the original instance) and that the father stated that he continued to have been a farmer before he received the donation from his father, and that the disposal of crops produced is not confirmed, it is difficult to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff “direct cultivation of the farmland”

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

2014Nu46517 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

JAA

Head of the High Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gudan718 Decided February 21, 2014

September 25, 2014

October 30, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of the first instance court on November 9, 2012 that the defendant imposed on the plaintiff on the plaintiff on the transfer income tax of 2011.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court's reasoning is as follows, among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, since the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of some of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Paragraph 2 below. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) Forms 3, 14 and 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be applied in the following manner:

In addition, the burden of proof of the fact that the land transferred while residing in the location of the farmland as provided in the above provisions is directly cultivated for eight or more years is recognized as the fact that the transferred land has been used as farmland for eight or more years (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94NuO00, Oct. 21, 1994; 2002DuOO0, Nov. 22, 2002). Further, the "direct cultivation" under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is not presumed to have been presumed to have been presumed to have been self-sufficient by the transferor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94NuO00, Oct. 21, 1994; 2002DuOO00, Nov. 22, 2002).

In light of the above legal principles and the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had been working on the farmland No. 2 at the time of 202 that he/she had acquired the farmland of this case as CCC, and the Plaintiff appears to have reported approximately KRW 10 or KRW 20 to the tax authorities each year, including the transfer date of the farmland of this case, for the purpose of 3 years since 2003, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff had been working on the farmland of this case for a period of 4 p.m. or as the main means of livelihood for the Plaintiff’s farmland purchase. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had been working on the farmland of this case for 10 p.m. and 20 p. 1 p.m. as well as the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Plaintiff had been working on the farmland of this case for 10 years before the date of 200 p.m., it cannot be seen that the Plaintiff had worked on the farmland of this case for 2 years.

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