It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had cultivated the farmland in this case for not less than eight years.

The disposition to impose capital gains tax after excluding the Plaintiff’s application for reduction or exemption is justifiable, because the Plaintiff was engaged directly in the cultivation, etc. of crops for not less than 8 years in the instant land or was unable to deem that not less than a half of the farming work was cultivated or cultivated with his own labor.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Busan District Court 2015Guhap22821 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

○ Head of tax office

April 7, 2016

May 12, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 00,00,000 for transfer income tax of 00,000 for the Plaintiff on October 0, 000, and KRW 0,000 for special rural development tax of KRW 00,000 for the total amount of KRW 00,000 for the transfer income tax of 00,000 for the Plaintiff (in light of the evidence No. 9 and evidence No. 1-1 for the transfer income tax of KRW 00,000 for the transfer income tax of KRW 00,00 for the transfer income tax of 00 for the Plaintiff

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 0, 000, the Plaintiff acquired 1/2 shares of 00,000 square meters of 00,000 square meters (hereinafter “1 farmland of this case”) from ○○○○○○○○○ Dong, 000-00, and acquired the remaining 1/2 shares of 1 farmland of this case as the cause of sale on October 0, 000. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on October 00, 199, the Plaintiff acquired the above 1/2 shares of 00,000 shares of 00,000 square meters (hereinafter “2 farmland of this case”) from 00,000 shares of 30,000 shares of 30,000 shares of 30,000 shares of 30,000 shares of 1 farmland of this case (hereinafter “the above 1 and 2 farmland of this case”). The Plaintiff acquired shares of 00,000 shares of 300,000 shares of 3.

B. On October 00, 000, the Plaintiff transferred the shares of KRW 00,000,000,000 (=0,000,000 +0,0000 +0,000,0000 + 0,000,000/00,0000), among the farmland No. 1 of this case and the farmland No. 2 of this case, to △ Corporation (hereinafter “transfer of this case”) for the purpose of consultation on public land acquisition at KRW 00,00,000.

C. On October 00, 000, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a report of tax base of transfer income and an order of direct payment, etc. following the transfer of this case, and filed a transfer income tax return by applying the provisions on reduction of transfer income tax for self-farmland for at least eight years with respect to 1/2 shares acquired on October 0, 000 among the farmland No. 1 of this case and 00,000/00,000 shares among the farmland No. 2 of this case (hereinafter “each of the above shares”) among the farmland No. 2 of this case.

D. From October 00 to October 00, 000, the Defendant conducted an investigation of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff, and determined that there was no direct self-sufficiency for not less than eight years on each of the farmland of this case. Accordingly, on October 0, 000, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing capital gains tax on the Plaintiff for KRW 000,000,000, total amount of KRW 00,000,000, and special rural development tax for KRW 00,000,000, and KRW 00,000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the disposition of this case and filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection on October 00, 000, but the Board of Audit and Inspection decided to dismiss the request for review on October 0, 000.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the farmland No. 1 of this case, the Plaintiff cultivated rice and barley from Oct. 0, 000 to Oct. 0, 1900, and from Oct. 00, 2000, the Plaintiff’s mother BB acquired 0,000/00,000 shares of the Plaintiff’s mother BB in the farmland No. 2 of this case with the Plaintiff’s father CCC and the Plaintiff’s shape DD.

원고는 0000. 00.경부터 ■■에서 연수를 받은 후, 0000. 0. 0.부터 0000. 0. 00.경까지 이 사건 각 농지 주변에 위치한 △△의 마사관리업체인 '▲▲'에서 근무하였는데, 원고는 위 '▲▲'에서 근무를 하면서 농사를 병행하였고, 이 사건 각 농지 지분을 양도한 이후에도 0000. 0.경 이미 심어져 있던 작물을 경작하기도 하는 등 8년 이상 이 사건 각 농지 소재 시・군・구에 거주하며 이 사건 각 농지를 경작하였다.

Therefore, the instant disposition that imposed capital gains tax, special rural development tax, etc. on the premise that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax because the Plaintiff did not own each of the instant farmland

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) and Article 66(1) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) provide that a resident shall directly cultivate the relevant farmland while living in a Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant farmland is located for at least eight years, a Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant farmland is located, a Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant farmland is located, or an area within 20 km in a straight line from the relevant farmland, and the term “direct cultivation” in this case means that a resident ordinarily engages in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants with his/her own labor, and thus, it is determined whether he/she directly claims reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax (see Supreme Court Decision 20190Da 294.

2) In full view of each of the above evidence, Gap's statements, 12 to 14, 19, 20 to 25 evidence, and the overall purport of the pleadings, the following facts are recognized.

(1) On October 0, 000, the Plaintiff made a move-in report to 000 ○○ Dong-dong 000, and on October 00, 000, the Plaintiff was corrected to 000-0 dong-dong 00, which is the actual lot number, and on October 00, 000, up to the date of the move-in report to 000 dong-dong 00-0, which is after the transfer of this case, from 000 to 000 dong-dong 00, which is the actual lot number of ○○○ Dong-dong 00, but the above 00-0 belongs to the same Gu as each of the farmland of this case.

(2) From October 00, 000 to the farmland ledger, the Plaintiff has become aware of the fact that the Plaintiff has refluenced against the farmland set forth in the second farmland set forth in this case.

(3) From 000 to 000, the Plaintiff received direct payments compensating for rice income, etc. for the farmland No. 1 in the instant case from 000 to 00, and from 000 to 000, the direct payments compensating for rice income, etc. for each of the instant farmland (with respect to the farmland No. 2 in the instant case, only some of the size).

(4) On October 0, 000, the Plaintiff paid 0,000 won to the same association similar to the same association, and joined as a quasi-member. On October 0, 000, after the transfer of this case, the Plaintiff invested 0,000,000 won in the above association and joined as a partner.

(5) From 000 to 000, the Plaintiff sold rice (d rice) in the name of each Plaintiff in 000 and in 000, the Plaintiff purchased fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, etc. from an association similar to the same group from 000 to 000 under the name of each Plaintiff.

3) However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the above evidence and evidence set forth in Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 7, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to believe that each of the above evidence and evidence set forth in Gap Nos. 6, 16 through 18, and 27, which appears to be consistent with the fact that the Plaintiff was engaged in crop cultivation in each of the farmland of this case or cultivated with one half or more of the farming work with his own labor. It is insufficient to recognize the above facts, Gap evidence No. 15, 26, and 28, and testimony of E

(1) 원고는 0000. 0. 0.경부터 0000. 0. 00.경까지 이 사건 각 농지 주변에 위치한 △△의 마사관리업체인 '▲▲'에서 근무하였는데, 급여로 0000년에 는 총 0,000만 0,000원, 0000년에는 총 0,000만 0,000원, 0000년에는 총 0,000만 0,000원, 0000년에는 총 0,000만 원을 받으면서, 수요일부터 일요일까지는 00:00경부터 00:00경까지, 월요일은 00:00경부터 00:00경까지 각 근무하였다. 위와 같이 원고가 0000. 0. 0.경부터 이 사건 양도 무렵까지 '▲▲'에서 근무한 시간과 급여를 고려할 때, 원고가 농작업을 할 수 있는 시간은 퇴근 후 취침하기까지의 시간과 휴무일인 화요일에 한정되었을 것으로 보인다.

(2) While claiming the amount of farming loss compensation following the transfer of this case to △ Corporation, DDR, the Plaintiff, was cultivating Biriland by leasing the farmland of this case and cultivating Biriland (0,000 square meters) among the farmland of this case. At the time of the claim, the Plaintiff, at the time of the claim, prepared a confirmation letter of cultivation confirming that Diriland of this case was cultivated from 000 to 000, and a confirmation letter of cultivation confirming that part of the farmland of this case of this case was cultivated for the same period. Accordingly, on October 0, 00, 190, Diri Corporation recognized Diriland as the leased farmland of this case and part of the farmland of this case as part of the farmland of this case, and paid compensation for agricultural loss by recognizing Diriland as part of the farmland of this case and the farmland of this case, while the Plaintiff did not receive any particular compensation from the Corporation of this case.

(3) In light of the fact that at the time of the investigation of capital gains tax, the Plaintiff: (a) at the time of the investigation, the Defendant’s employees were the U.S. farmer; and (b) stated that DD was the letter of help him; and (c) the net CCC and DD appears to have been engaged in agriculture without any occupation different from the Plaintiff; (b) the considerable portion of the farming works in each of the instant farmland appears to have been conducted by the net CCC and DD; and (c) at least, the Plaintiff did not seem to have been engaged in the agricultural works performed by the net CCC and

(4) The farmland ledger is an internal data prepared and kept for the efficient implementation of farmland management and agricultural policies. The farmland ledger (No. 13) submitted by the Plaintiff on October 0, 000 is still being cultivated by the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff cultivated the second farmland of this case solely on the basis of the above farmland ledger.

(5) The Plaintiff appears to have owned farmland in addition to each farmland share. As such, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff directly cultivated each farmland of this case solely based on the fact that the Plaintiff joined the same association as an associate member and thereafter sold rice, barley, etc. and purchased fertilizers, agrochemical, etc.

(6) The witness EE showed in this court that the Plaintiff had been engaged in work at the Sauri workplace (aboard) around 4 p.m. and that it was also engaged in work at each farmland of this case. However, the witness EE did not make a detailed statement as to when the Plaintiff had performed work at any time on each farmland of this case from when to when.

4) Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for reduction and exemption under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition

3. Conclusion

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