early 2012 Middle 1291 (Law No. 19, 2012)

We cannot accept any argument that a person with wage and salary income has replaced for not less than eight years.

If it is merely an indirect management of agriculture in concentrate on other occupations, it shall not be deemed a self-employed farmer, and if it is deemed that high-amount earned income has been generated, the main business is not agriculture, and there is no error in the disposition that excluded the application for reduction or exemption for the transfer of land.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2013Gudan1434 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

LAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

July 3, 2013

August 14, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of the capital gains tax on August 10, 201 by the defendant against the plaintiff on August 10, 201 (the "2011" stated in the complaint seems to be a clerical error) shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

가. 원고는 2000. 10. 11. 취득한 OO시 OO동 603-3 답 645㎡， 같은 동 603-4 답 344㎡， 같은 동 603-5 답 1，345㎡(이하 '이 사건 각 토지'라고 한다)를 2009. 6. 8. OO시에 각 양도한 후 2009. 8. 25. 이 사건 각 토지의 양도와 관련하여 양도소득세 신고를 하면서 이 사건 각 토지가 모두 원고가 8년 이상 직접 경작한 토지라는 이유로 양도소득세 감면신청을 하였다.

B. The Defendant did not accept the Plaintiff’s application for reduction or exemption on the ground that all of the instant lands do not constitute land directly cultivated by the Plaintiff for at least eight years, and decided and notified the Plaintiff on August 10, 201, OOOO of capital gains tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On February 27, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 19, 2012.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although each of the instant lands was directly cultivated by the Plaintiff for not less than eight years, the Defendant was subject to the instant disposition on a different premise, and the Defendant’s disposition against the Plaintiff was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Article 66(13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21565, Jun. 26, 2009) provides that "Direct cultivation" means that "a resident is engaged in cultivating or growing crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland or growing or growing at least 1/2 of farming with his/her own labor", and the meaning of "regular work" and "self's labor force" should be interpreted in accordance with the language and text. In light of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21565, Jun. 26, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 21565, Feb. 13, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 22010, Feb. 19, 201; Presidential Decree No. 22010, Feb. 21, 2010>

2) In light of the above legal principles, each of the evidence presented above and the statements presented by Gap evidence No. 8 and the overall purport of arguments can be seen as follows. The plaintiff, who was partially engaged in cultivating each of the lands of this case, cannot be deemed to have appropriated 1/2 or more of the farming work required for the cultivation of each of the lands of this case with his own labor. Accordingly, each of the lands of this case does not constitute land directly cultivated by the plaintiff for not less than eight years.

① From October 1, 200 to March 5, 2006, the Plaintiff, who was employed by the O dairy support center located in the OO-dong from March 6, 2006 to June 8, 2009 as the regular employees of the Seoul milk cooperative, had been employed by the O-O dairy support center located in the O-O-dong from March 6, 2006 to the O-O-O-dong respectively during each of the above periods, with each of the above periods of work and each of the instant land, and at the same time with a large size of the work, cannot be easily acquired that the Plaintiff cultivated at each of the instant land using 1/2 or more of the farming work with his own labor.

② In light of the fact that the Plaintiff is not able to submit objective data on the details of the purchase of basic farming equipment necessary for each land of this case, and the Plaintiff’s certificate of association member (Evidence A5) that “the Plaintiff was admitted to an agricultural cooperative as a member from June 13, 2007), the farmland ledger (Evidence A6) prepared on July 10, 2006, and “the Plaintiff received direct payments for rice farmers from around 2005,” each entry in the receipt of rice and farming company subsidies (Evidence A7) and each personal inquiry that “the Plaintiff has taken a farming house in each land of this case using holidays,” and that “the Plaintiff has taken a farming house in each land of this case by using holidays,” are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was insufficient to support the Plaintiff’s own farming labor in each land of this case for not less than 2/10 of this case’s testimony under each of the following items: (No. 1 through 3 evidence No. 17-15) and each evidence No. 17-6) and evidence No.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.