If it is merely an indirect management of agriculture with focus on other occupation, it does not constitute a self-defense.

In a case where agriculture is indirectly managed while concentrate on other occupations, and most farmland is maintained, it does not constitute a self-defense for 8 years, since there is no evidence that the remaining part of the farmland is excluding the maintenance part, or that the water was used for the maintenance.

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

Suwon District Court 2016Gudan29 revocation of Disposition of Imposing Capital Gains Tax

AA

00. Head of tax office

December 1, 2016

on January 20, 2010

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 KRW 9,447,611 (including additional tax) for the year 2014 against the Plaintiff on February 10, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 31, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired 00 00 Gun 00 Gun 00 Gun 00 Gun 00 Do 000 Do 3260 m260 m2 as sales.

B. The said 00 land was divided into 832 square meters prior to October 2, 2003 and 000-02,428 square meters prior to the same Ri on October 2, 2003. On November 18, 2003, the land category of the said 00-0 land was changed to its maintenance. Meanwhile, the said 00 land divided was again divided into 340 square meters prior to the same Ri on June 14, 2013, and 00-0 square meters prior to the same Ri on April 14, 2013.

C. On April 15, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the same 00-0 m2,428 m2, and 340 m2,00 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) to the Korea Transit Environment Office during the accommodation process, and reported on June 27, 2014, on the ground that the instant land satisfies the self-farmland requirements for at least eight years, upon filing a transfer income tax report on June 27, 2014

D. On February 10, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the ground that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to be deemed that the instant land was self-refised for at least eight years after conducting an on-site investigation on the instant land, and rendered a decision and notification on the transfer income tax of 39,049,714 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff for the year 2014.

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a tax appeal, but was dismissed on October 28, 2015.

F. Meanwhile, on July 17, 2013, the Plaintiff was granted reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the grounds that the Plaintiff transferred the said 000-0 square meters to another person and reported transfer income tax on the said 492 square meters, and constitutes one with less than eight years.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 8-2, Gap evidence No. 23, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On August 31, 2001, the Plaintiff maintained approximately 30 square meters at the time of the acquisition of the instant land. The part of Babs was discussed from that to that of August 2008, the Plaintiff left rice farmers as a rice field. In addition, around March 2009, the Plaintiff cultivated drilling, distribution trends, straws, shoulders, shoulders, straws, straws, and straws, etc. even without directly cultivating crops, if the water maintained in the remaining land was used as agricultural water, it shall also be deemed as farmland, and even if it is not a domestic business, the disposition of this case denying it is unlawful, even though the Plaintiff was self-employed for not less than eight years with respect to the remaining part except for the maintenance.

B. Determination

Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of transfer income tax shall be reduced for the income accruing from the transfer of land directly cultivated by the resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the location of the farmland for not less than eight years, and as such, the taxpayer has the burden of proving that he has cultivated the farmland directly.

In light of the following circumstances, even if a person directly engaged in farming concurrently, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s business was operating the place of business until the time of transfer, at least 2,428 square meters of the above 7th m209, with the business registration under the trade name of “00”, which is, even if he/she concurrently engages in another occupation, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff transferred the remaining portion of the above 1st m3,260 square meters of the above 7th m209 m2, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff transferred the above 1st m3th m3,000 m3,000 m2,000 m3,000 m2,000 m3,000 m2,000 m3,000 m2,000 m3,000 m3,000 m2,000.

3. Conclusion

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