early 2012 Middle 1686 ( October 15, 2012)

It is difficult to recognize that land has been cultivated directly for at least eight years as farmland.

It is insufficient to recognize that the land was directly cultivated as farmland for 8 years or longer in light of the fact that it is difficult to believe that the owner has consumed the agricultural products harvested from farmland in a considerable area, and that it is difficult to confirm the fact of cultivation even if the owner of the farmland had operated the business as the representative director of the corporation or carried on the business for the period of holding the land.

2012Guhap10650 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AAAA

The director of the tax office

May 29, 2013

July 3, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition on January 9, 2012, imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000 (including KRW 0000,000,000, in a case where the failure to make a declaration was due) for the year 2010, which was rendered to the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2002. 6. 22. 부(父) 임BB으로부터 광주시 오포읍 000 전 636 ㎡， 같은 리 0000 전 80㎡， 같은 리 000 전 721㎡ 외 수 필지를 증여받았는데， 2010. 2. 1. 위 토지 중 같은 리 0000-26 토지 를 같은 리 0000-7 토지로 합병 한 후， 2010. 9. 30. 같은 리 0000-7 전 716㎡ 토지 중 55㎡를 같은 리 0000-41로，22㎡를 0000-42로 각 분할하였고， 2010. 10. 1. 같은 리 0000-31 전 721㎡ 토지 중 25㎡를 같은 리 0000-43으로，142㎡를 같은 리 0000-44로 각 분할하였다.

나. 원고는 2010. 10. 8. 고OO에게 광주시 오포읍 0000 전 554㎡， 같은 리 0000-41 전 55㎡를， 같은 날 유OO에게 광주시 오포읍 0000 전 22㎡， 같은 리 0000-43 전 25㎡， 같은 리 0000-44 전 142㎡를 각 매도하였다(이하 원고가 매도 한 토지들을 '이 사건 각 토지'라고 한다).

(C) On October 19, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction of capital gains tax on the ground that the Plaintiff directly cultivated each of the instant land for at least eight years, upon filing a preliminary return of capital gains tax on each of the instant land with the Defendant. In addition, the Defendant, after undergoing a field investigation, determined and notified the Plaintiff on January 9, 2012 that the Plaintiff did not own each of the instant land, the capital gains tax of KRW 000 (including the additional tax on unfaithful return, KRW 000,000, and the additional tax for unfaithful return) for the year 2010 was determined and notified (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on April 2, 2012, but was dismissed on June 15, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 13, and 14, and Eul 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff directly cultivated each of the instant land located within 40 meters from home, and resolved the food of family members with positive agricultural products, and received direct payment subsidies based on self-scoping. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is deemed to have earned income and business income, but the PP was a company registered as a nominal representative director, and the OOO is merely a company that the Plaintiff lent the name of OO that is the birth of the Plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff’s earned income and business income from 2002 to 2008 are as listed below.

(The following table omitted):

2) According to the Plaintiff’s farmland ledger, the land that the Plaintiff had cultivated is a total of 8,699 square meters including each of the instant land.

3) According to the airline margin (Evidence A to 30) submitted by the Plaintiff, and the fact that each of the instant lands is cultivated as farmland cannot be clearly confirmed.

[Grounds for Recognition] The above evidence, Gap evidence 27 to 30, and Eul evidence 4

D. Determination

Article 66(13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the transferor shall actively prove the fact that the transferred land has been used as farmland for not less than eight years, and that the transferor is not presumed to have done self-defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu96, Oct. 21, 1994). Further, Article 66(13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the owner is engaged in cultivating crops or growing or growing one half or more of farming work on his own labor when it is difficult for the plaintiff to prove that the income amount from 202 to 2008, during the period in which the plaintiff alleged that he cultivated each of the land of this case, cannot be deemed as income acquired as incidental to the cultivation of the farmland, and in particular, the plaintiff has consumed the farmland for a considerable amount of time from 205 to 200 billion won, and that the plaintiff had not been able to prove that the plaintiff had been able to use the farmland in its name.

3. Conclusion

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