early 2010 Heavy2871 ( December 31, 2010)

There is no evidence to regard that not less than 1/2 of the farming work was cultivated or cultivated with his own labor; therefore, the self-defense requirement is not satisfied.

In view of the fact that there is a substantial wide area in direct cultivation while serving as a public educational official, and the fact that the portion of the portion of the real farming is entrusted with the cultivation, etc., the requirements for self-sufficiency are not satisfied, since there is no evidence to regard that not less than 1/2 of the farming work was cultivated or cultivated with its own labor in farmland.

2011Guhap4061 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

August 18, 2011

September 29, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 187,989,840 on June 7, 2010 against the Plaintiff as of June 7, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 3, 1985, the Plaintiff acquired 00-0 m2,798 m2,000 m2,798 m2,000 m2,000 m2,798 m2,000 m2,000 m2,213 m2, on April 30, 1997, and O00-0 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00 m2,000 m2,000 m2,08,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,08.

B. On June 1, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a report with the Defendant on the transfer income tax reverting to the year 2008, and even limited each of the above farmland (hereinafter referred to as “the farmland in this case”) for more than eight years, and applied for reduction or exemption of transfer income tax under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

C. However, the Defendant deemed that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to directly cultivate the instant farmland, and determined and notified KRW 187,989,840 for the transfer income tax reverted to June 7, 2010 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

D. On August 25, 2010, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 25, 2010, but the said claim was dismissed on December 3l, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3, Eul 1 to 3 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff resided in Ansan-si, which is the seat of the instant farmland, and cultivated the instant farmland directly for not less than 8 years, the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax on the instant farmland constitutes “self-arable farmland for not less than 8 years” under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and thus, the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In order for the farmland of this case to be subject to the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921 of Jan. 1, 2010) and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307 of Feb. 4, 2009), the Plaintiff shall directly cultivate the farmland of this case while residing in the Si, Gun, Gun, Gu, or Gu adjacent thereto for at least eight years after the acquisition of the farmland of this case, or directly cultivate the farmland of this case, namely, cultivating the crops or growing perennial plants by using his own labor, and bear the burden of proof for such requirements.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in the above evidence and evidence Nos. 4 through 9, namely, ① the Plaintiff is a middle school teacher from March 1, 1973 to February 28, 200, and the Plaintiff is a public educational official who has served as a principal from the next day to August 31, 2004. ② The total area of the farmland in this case is a 11,955 square meters and a public educational official’s general working hours, the area of the farmland in this case is considerably wide to directly cultivate while living in the workplace. In addition, the Plaintiff owned farmland 4,000 square meters. ③ In light of the fact that it appears that the Plaintiff paid expenses and entrusted farming to doctoral authorities, etc., considering the mechanicalization of agriculture claimed by the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had fulfilled the Plaintiff’s work of cultivating the farmland in this case.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion against this is not accepted.

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.