National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2010-0265 ( October 22, 2010)

could not be presumed that the farmland was directly corrected.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff had earned income, the Plaintiff was unable to submit all data on the purchase of pesticides, fertilizers, and farming materials for direct cultivation, and the fact that the direct payments for preserving rice income cannot be presumed to have been “direct cultivation” even if they were paid, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had cultivated the land for not less than eight years. Therefore, the disposition that excluded capital gains tax reduction or exemption is legitimate.

2011Gudan3473 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX

O Head of tax office

June 14, 2011

July 19, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 99,560,310 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2010.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 11, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 1,69m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) from Pyeongtaek-si and Dong 92-6m2 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) and transferred it to the Korea Land Corporation on December 4, 2007.

B. On January 31, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) reduced the tax amount of KRW 100,000 on the ground that the instant land constitutes farmland with self-fluence for not less than eight years; and (b) made a preliminary return of KRW 46,566,00 for the transfer income tax reverted to year 200

C. Accordingly, on February 1, 2010, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the increase in capital gains tax of KRW 9,560,310 for the year 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by deeming that the Plaintiff did not have re-established or re-developed the Plaintiff for at least eight years.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including each number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case, which was otherwise reported, is unlawful, because it satisfies the requirements of re- village and self-defense, which are the grounds for reduction of self-farmland as follows:

(1) From June 1996 to June 2008, the Plaintiff resided in Pyeongtaek-si, XXdong 879-4, XX apartment 202 Dong 1506 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant residence”). The Plaintiff’s workplace was temporarily changed from the Plaintiff’s workplace to (ju), P, P, P,O 1023, and (ju, P: P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P.

(2) The instant land is a small scale that can be cultivated after the retirement of ordinary days or after the weekends, etc., and the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Plaintiff’s workplace, etc.

(A) From June 1, 1996 to April 30, 2001, the Plaintiff served as the factory head of (ju) △△△△△△△, from May 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002, as the technical research institute head of (ju), from April 1, 2002 to December 31, 2004, and as the joint representative director of (ju), from April 1, 2002 to December 31, 2004.

(B) The Plaintiff worked for the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, from April 1, 2002 to December 31, 2003, the Plaintiff worked for a period of two to three occasions a week from April 1, 2002 to December 31, 2003, and worked for a part time period from January 1, 2004.

(C) From June 21, 1996 to July 1, 2008, the Plaintiff was registered as a resident in the instant residential area with the lowestA, the spouse, and on July 2, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred his resident registration to 135 BB, Dong 1159, Dong 135, 1001.

(2) Farmland ledger, etc.

(A) On the farmland ledger first prepared on September 27, 2005, the Plaintiff stated that the land of this case is self-confising as a farmer.

(B) From 2003 to 2006, the Plaintiff received subsidies for rice, and on October 11, 2007, received agricultural compensation from the Korea Land Corporation.

[Reasons for Recognition] The above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, 8 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) In order for the transfer income tax to be reduced or exempted as farmland for its own use, Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010); Article 66(1) and (12) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620, Feb. 22, 2008); the Plaintiff, while residing in a Si/Gun/Gu where the transferor is located or an area within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto, shall be directly cultivated for eight years or longer from the time of acquisition of the pertinent land; the “direct cultivation” means that the transferor is constantly engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants or growing perennial plants on his own land; (2) from 00 years to 10 years to 20 years from the time of acquisition of the pertinent land by the Plaintiff’s first sale of the said land; and (3) from 190 years to 20 years to the time of acquisition of the instant land by the Plaintiff.

Unlike agriculture or agricultural management, the Act on the Compensation of Rice Income, etc. requires direct cultivation for the purpose of preserving rice income, etc. as a payment requirement for the purpose of preserving rice income. Thus, it cannot be presumed that a direct cultivation was made even if a direct payment was made for preserving rice income, etc. as prescribed by the Act on the Compensation of Rice Income, etc., which clearly differs from the legislative purpose and requirements, in light of the above fact of recognition and the result of the plaintiff's newspaper alone, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff had resided in the land of this case for not less than 8 years in the location of the land of this case, and there is no evidence to find otherwise.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, since the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to meet the requirements for re- village and self-reliance, which are the requirements for reduction of capital gains tax, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff reported as such is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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