Daejeon High Court-2014-Nu-10125 (No. 12, 2014)

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had cultivated directly for not less than 8 years, such as cultivating more than 1/2 of the farming work required in the instant land with his own labor.

direct cultivation means that a resident is constantly engaged in the cultivation of the crops or the growing of perennial plants on his own farmland, or who cultivates or cultivates not less than half of the farming work with his own labor;

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2014du386444 of the disposition of revocation of capital gains tax imposition.

IsaA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Daejeon High Court Decision 2014Nu10125 Decided June 12, 2014

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

It is insufficient to determine that the Plaintiff, who is engaged in a construction company or a real estate leasing business, has been planted with trees and is in a state of trees management, is not enough to directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years due to the Plaintiff’s full-time engaged in cultivating crops in the instant land on a large scale of 9,546 square meters, or cultivating at least 1/2 of the required farming work using his own labor force. Accordingly, it rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the income accrued from the transfer of the instant land constitutes an exemption from capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 111133, Dec. 31, 2011); Article 66(13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24368, Feb. 15, 2013).

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no illegality such as exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or misapprehending the legal principles on “direct cultivation of farmland” which is the requirement

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.