The early 2011 middle 3410

It is difficult to see that the farmland in question was of 8 years ago.

In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff’s self-sufficiency in the farmland at issue was difficult to accept, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was insufficient to serve as an objective evidence for the requirements for self-reliance, in view of the fact that the Plaintiff’s self-sufficiency in the farmland at issue was not acceptable in light of the amount of income when operating three businesses within the period of possession of farmland as a joint business

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

2012Gudan1776 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Park AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

July 8, 2013

August 12, 2013

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 capital gains tax for the year 2010 against the Plaintiff on March 9, 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 1991. 4. 29. OO시 OO리 49-10 전 650㎡， 같은 리 49-11 전 11㎡(이하 '이 사건 토지'라 한다)를 취득하였다가 2010. 3. 26. 이를 양도한 다음， 피고에게 위 토지를 8년 이상 자경하였음을 전제로 양도소득세 감면신청을 하였다.

B. On March 9, 201, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s application for reduction and exemption, and rendered a disposition of imposing the income tax on the transfer of the OOOE to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a tax judgment with the Tax Tribunal, but received a decision of dismissal on December 12, 201.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, and Eul evidence 1, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, in the course of operating DD as a partnership with the CC, took up the instant land, and thereafter, took charge of the management of DD, and cultivated dD directly with the consumption of the said land by the family members. Therefore, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the Plaintiff did not own the instant land, was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

(1) Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010) and the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012)

Article 66 (1) and (13) clearly stipulate that in order to be exempted from capital gains tax, a resident must directly cultivate the relevant farmland while residing in a Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant farmland is located, and in a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the relevant farmland, or in an area within 20km in a straight line from the relevant farmland, and "direct cultivation" means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland at all times or in cultivating or cultivating them with his/her own labor at least 1/2 of the farming work. Therefore, the meaning of "one-2 or more own labor force" should be interpreted as a grammatic and determined whether he/she directly cultivates the farmland (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010); and the burden of proving the fact that he/she directly cultivated the transferred land as the requirement for exemption from capital gains tax on his/her own farmland is against the person liable to pay capital gains tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2094Nu94.

(2) We examine whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land.

(A) As shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion, there are evidence evidence evidence: Gap 2 and 10, and Eul 11 testimony, but each of the above evidence is less than Eul 2 and 3, and 6, and the court’s fact inquiry into OF under the overall purport of the arguments. In other words, the Plaintiff has operated HH and DD, and C with this Court from 1982 to 2010, and the Plaintiff has operated HH and D, and the Plaintiff has reported income tax from OOOOOOOOOO in 203 to 209, on the premise that the Plaintiff reported income tax return was based on the premise that the Plaintiff had imported OOOOOOO personnel from the 203rd to 209, and in light of the method of preparation and process of confirmation submitted by the Plaintiff, and its relation between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to have made an objective evidence on the Plaintiff’s own land before this case’s cultivation, and the remaining portion of this case’s cultivation of this case’s land was 50 years.

(B) In addition, most of the products purchased by the Plaintiff from the OOF are transited through most, and there was no record of purchasing products directly necessary for agricultural landscape such as seeds before 2009, and the farmland ledger is only the data prepared for the efficient implementation of farmland management and agricultural policies, and it is not effective to prove self-defense, and it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion on the basis of the descriptions in Gap’s 6 through 9, and 15, and 16.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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