We cannot accept the plaintiff's assertion premiseding that the farmland of this case was cultivated directly for 8 years or longer.

Where a farmland owner cultivates farmland by employing another person in a state with an occupation other than agriculture and directly cultivates only intermittently, he/she shall be excluded from the capital gains tax reduction or exemption.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act for Self-Cultivating Farmland

2016Gudan5677 Such disposition shall be revoked.

○ Kim

○○ Head of tax office

2017.12

2017.09.06

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of 2014 on August 4, 2015 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A.**** Si**** Eup***** 879 square meters prior to 879 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the farmland in this case”) is the land the ownership of which has been registered in the Plaintiff’s name on June 1, 1964 for sale and purchase.

B. The Plaintiff resided in ** Si**** Eup** on July 28, 1973, and resided in the Gyeonggi-si area since the transfer into **** 8*-16 on July 28, 1973, and on April 10, 2014, transferred the instant farmland to the KK District Housing Association, and then transferred the instant farmland to the Defendant for at least eight years, and then filed a preliminary return on capital gains tax on the said transfer income by deeming that the amount of tax has been reduced pursuant to Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015) with respect to the said transfer income.

C. On August 4, 2015, the Defendant, on the ground that the instant farmland was not a self-arable farmland for at least eight years, did not apply the said provision, but rather corrected and notified ○○○○○○○○ in the transfer income tax for the year 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection on October 30, 2015, but was dismissed on December 23, 2012. On March 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for dismissal on May 4, 201 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 21, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On December 1962, before the date of the registration of ownership transfer of the farmland in this case, the Plaintiff purchased from Na on December 1962, and started to set up the business farming house. On March 23, 1964, the Plaintiff entered the Gun on March 23, 1964 and was living together with her mother, her mother, who was living together with her mother and her mother through going out of the country and on leave, etc. until October 15, 1966. Thus, on July 28, 1973, the Plaintiff continued to own farming house for 10 years and 7 years before her moving into Gyeonggi-do, and accordingly, the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on her own farmland was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The time of acquiring the farmland in this case

If the registration of ownership transfer is completed with respect to real estate, it shall be presumed that ownership is acquired through legitimate grounds for registration (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da2993, Jun. 24, 197). Meanwhile, Article 27 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2705, Dec. 24, 197) which first provides for the time of acquisition of asset provides that "the time of acquisition of real estate enters into the relevant contract and receives part of the price other than the down payment or the date of receiving it." Thus, the time of acquisition of farmland in this case shall be deemed as the date of June 1, 1964, which is the sale contract date recorded in the register, and it is reasonable to deem that the time of acquisition of farmland in this case is between June 1, 1964 and August 21, 196, which is the date of registration completion, and there is no evidence to prove the above presumption.

(2) Whether the plaintiff was self-appellant

(A) Legislative purpose of the Act on Reduction and Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland

Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that a tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted on income accruing from the transfer of land cultivated directly by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who resides in the farmland area for not less than eight years by means prescribed by Presidential Decree. The legislative purpose of this provision is to promote agriculture and rural communities by preventing the speculation of farmland in the outer land in accordance with Article 121(1) of the Constitution, which declares the principle of light-to-land freedom as the State's duty in order to liquidate the tenant system, which is a major legal relation, and to eliminate the inefficiency of the use of farmland caused by the absence of such system.

(B) The meaning of "direct cultivation"

Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 4666 of Dec. 31, 1993) provides that the term "direct farming", which is defined as the requirement for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, has been used in the law, has been continuously used for the term "direct farming" since the above amendment was amended by Presidential Decree No. 19329 of Feb. 9, 2006. Article 66 (12) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19329 of Feb. 9, 2006) provides that the term "direct farming" means that a resident is engaged in cultivating agricultural products or growing perennial plants on his own land or cultivating or cultivating them with his own labor by more than half of farming works after the enforcement date of the above Act.

In full view of the introduction of the term "direct farming" and the developments leading up to the establishment of the definition provisions, and the legislative purpose of the regulations on reduction and exemption of capital gains tax on self-Cultivating farmland as seen earlier, "direct farming" under Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is a concept to realize the legislative purpose of "direct farming" in order to prevent the speculation of farmland in non-owned land and reduce the tax burden of self-employed farmers for not less than 8 years, so that "direct farming" can be recognized as a concept to realize the legislative purpose of "direct farming", it is necessary to directly input of not less than 1/2 of the farmers and farmland in the place, time (on a regular basis) or one-half or more of them, and accordingly, it should be excluded from capital gains tax reduction and exemption if the owner of farmland employs another person with occupation other than agriculture and cultivates farmland on a intermittent basis only while cultivating farmland.

(C) Whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant farmland during the period of military service

According to Gap evidence Nos. 10 and Eul evidence Nos. 3, the plaintiff was admitted on March 23, 1964 and was removed from Staff on October 15, 1966. The plaintiff's annual leave is within 25 days on the Military Service Regulations at the time of the plaintiff's military service, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff had been going out at the weekend. The above evidence Nos. 6, 25, 26 of the plaintiff's submission is difficult to believe, and it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff cultivated or cultivated more than half of farming work from the farmland of this case with his own labor.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the time when the plaintiff can be deemed to have acquired the farmland of this case can be seen as acquiring the farmland of this case, even if the plaintiff acknowledged it most favorable to the plaintiff. Meanwhile, since the plaintiff entered the Gun on March 23, 1964 and served until October 15, 1966, the period during which the plaintiff's self-sufficiency can be achieved is merely the period from the above date to July 28, 1973 (as approximately 6 years and 9 months) and it is merely a period from the above date to the date of July 28, 1973 when the plaintiff transferred the farmland of this case to Gyeonggi-do, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.