Cho High Court Decision 2012 Deputy 1997 (Law No. 12, 2012)

It is difficult to recognize as having cultivated farmland directly for not less than eight years.

It is difficult to recognize that farmland has been cultivated directly for not less than eight years in light of the fact that police officers were employed as police officers or engaged in other types of occupation, such as retail business, aquaculture, etc., the fact that there is considerable distance between the domicile and farmland, and that it is difficult to readily obtain the payment of farmland and farmland every day, and that there is no fact that rice subsidies have been received.

2012Guhap3840 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

Kim Jong-soo

April 2, 2013

May 7, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2010 against the Plaintiff on February 13, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be recognized in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence 1-5, Gap evidence 2-1 to 2, Eul evidence 3, and Eul evidence 1.

가. 원고는 1980. 1. 31. 김해시 장유면 OO리 0000 답 2，169㎡(아래와 같이 분할되기 전의 위 부동산을 이하에서는 '분할 전 농지' 라 한다)에 관하여 1967. 5. 3.자 매 매를 원인으로 소유권이전등기를 마친 사람이고，위 토지는 2010. 3. 11. 같은 리 000-8 답 1，205㎡， 같은 리 000-27 답 95㎡， 같은 리 000-28 답 294㎡， 같은 리 000-29 답 575㎡로 분할되었다.

나. 원고는 2010. 2. 10. 분할 전 농지 중 위 같은 리 000-27 답 95㎡，같은 리 000-28 답 294㎡， 같은 리 000-29 답 575㎡ 부분(이하 3필지 부분을 합하여 '이 사건 농지'라 한다)을 소외 주식회사 PPPP에 000원에 매도하고，2010. 3. 25. 그 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마쳐준 다음 2010. 6. 10. 피고에게 이 사건 농지를 8년 이상 직접 경작하였다는 이유로 양도소득세 감면 신청을 하였다.

C. The Defendant: (a) determined that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant farmland for at least eight years; (b) denied the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the notice of correction and notification of capital gains tax at KRW 000 on November 2, 201; and (d) on February 13, 2012, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the increase in capital gains tax of the same amount (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On April 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on September 12, 2012.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

While the Plaintiff acquired the farmland of this case for about 20 years from May 3, 1967 to the sale thereof, it was judged that the Plaintiff had not cultivated the farmland of this case directly for 8 years, and that the disposition of this case was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010); Article 66(1) and (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22953, Jun. 3, 2011) provide that a resident shall directly cultivate the farmland in a Si/Gun/Gu (referring to an autonomous Gu; hereinafter the same shall apply) where the farmland in question is located or a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto for at least eight years in order to have the capital gains tax reduced or exempted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da10406, Feb. 27, 2010). Therefore, it is recognized that a resident is constantly engaged in cultivating or cultivating the farmland in his/her own farmland or growing perennial plants, or that a person directly asserts for at least 1/2 of his/her own labor force during the period of 90 years to transfer the farmland (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da1394, Feb. 29, 20194).

2) Therefore, as to whether the Plaintiff was constantly engaged in the cultivation of agricultural crops in the instant farmland or 1/2 or more of farming work in its own labor, each written confirmation (Evidence No. 5-1 through No. 25), a fact-finding confirmation (Evidence No. 5-26, No. 5-27 and No. 28), and a fact-finding confirmation (Evidence No. 8) are recorded (Evidence No. 1) as to when and when the Plaintiff were carrying out farming work in the instant farmland, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff was aware that the Plaintiff was self-employed in the instant farmland at any time, and that part of its makers were transferred to a village with the Plaintiff’s own labor, and that it was difficult to find that the Plaintiff was aware of the farmland in question, and that it was hard to find that the Plaintiff was aware of the farmland in question for the period of 20 days after the Plaintiff started self-defense, and that the Plaintiff was aware of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the witness No. 1 through No. 57.

3) Rather, the following facts and circumstances are acknowledged by the overall purport of Gap evidence 1 through 5, and Eul evidence 7, and the plaintiff retired from office as police officers from around 1987, as alleged by the plaintiff, and the National Tax Service’s computer system shows that it is difficult to view the plaintiff's own farmland as one of the NO's trade names from January 15, 1993 to October 22, 2001, and it was difficult to view that the plaintiff was engaged in the farming business for a period of 0 years since 1996 to 199, and that the plaintiff was engaged in the farming business for 0 years since 1970 and that it was difficult to view that the plaintiff had been engaged in the farming business for 0 years from 190 to 190, and that the plaintiff had been engaged in the farming business for 0 years since 190,000 agricultural land to 00,0000,0000,000 won for 0 OM.

3. Conclusion

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