Busan District Court 2017Guhap20607 (23 June 2017)

It is not enough to recognize that more than 1/2 of farming work was cultivated by the plaintiff's labor force.

If a farmland owner mainly cultivates farmland by using another person's labor in a situation other than agriculture, etc., he/she shall be excluded from the capital gains tax reduction and exemption if he/she cultivates farmland on a intermittent basis.

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

2017Nu22527 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

AA

○ Head of tax office

Busan District Court Decision 2017Guhap20607 Decided 23, 2017

on January 29, 2017

November 17, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. On December 3, 2015, the imposition of the capital gains tax of the Plaintiff ○○○○○○ and the special rural development tax of the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court of first instance is just in finding and determining the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to this court, considering the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, and there is no error as alleged in the ground for appeal by the plaintiff.

The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as follows: "Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance"; "Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 of the evidence"; "Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance"; "Nos. 8, 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following contents to the 7th judgment; therefore

The area of the instant land is larger than 3,078 square meters, and it is necessary to manage the instant land throughout the entire process, such as rice paddys, fertilizer cycle, rotory, fry, and rice beer, and even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff actively engaged in the cultivation of the instant land in the situation where the Plaintiff resided in the instant land at a place less than 14 km or 20 km away from the straight line of the instant land and works as a fire official or a professor holding concurrent positions at the Gyeongnam Information University.

7) Even if the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, performed certain work, such as water cannon or deducted, fertilizer, sweeting, and dried work, it is doubtful whether the Plaintiff’s work with its own labor is equal to or greater than a half of the farming work in light of the following: (a) in light of the fact that the Plaintiff, a neighboring resident, BB, CCC, etc. performed the work using agricultural machinery, such as sweet, track, and compact, which is a major part of rice farmers; (b) 2B, CCC, etc., a neighboring resident.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.