Jeonju District Court-2015-Gu Group-950 ( October 12, 2016)

High Court 2014 Mine4582 (O6, 2015)

Since the Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the land in this case, the Defendant’s disposition denying the reduction or exemption by the self-definite around 8 years is legitimate.

Since the fact of the transfer of land, which is the requirement for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax, has the burden of proof against the transferor who asserts it, it is difficult to prove the fact of the transfer only by the plaintiff's assertion in this case where the substitute lessee has cultivated

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

Gwangju High Court-2016-Nu-2057 ( November 30, 2016)

leAA

O Head of tax office

Jeonju District Court-2015-Gu Group-950 ( October 12, 2017)

2017.25

oly 30, 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 shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of correction of KRW 181,776,130 for the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2012 against the plaintiff on December 26, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The reasons for the court's judgment in this part are the same as the corresponding column of the court's judgment of first instance.

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since 1996 to 2003, the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for 8 years.

The instant disposition is unlawful on the premise that the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015)

(1) Paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree for at least eight years by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree residing in farmland.

Transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree, among land cultivated directly by methods prescribed by Presidential Decree;

rule that the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for income derived;

The former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015)

Article 66(4) of the Act means the farmland that has been cultivated by oneself for at least eight years from the time of its acquisition to the time of its transfer, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, in the main sentence of Article 69(1) of the Act.

Article 69 (1) of the Act provides that "The direct cultivation in the manner prescribed by Presidential Decree means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland at all times or is engaged in cultivating or growing at least half of farming work with his/her own labor."

On the other hand, the transfer of land which is the requirement of capital gains tax reduction and exemption is alleged.

The person bears the burden of proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 1994).

2) Whether the Plaintiff has cultivated the instant land for eight years from 1996 to 2003

I shall be deemed to be the case.

From 1996 to 2003, the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land, and the 2004 father.

Gter asserts that KimA until 2006, 2007, 2A from 2008 to 2011, and 2BB from 2012.

of the evidence of No. 2-1 to 4, each entry of No. 5 to 8, and part of the witness of the first instance trial.

The testimony, the appellate court's witness KimA's partial testimony and the overall purport of the arguments are recognized.

The circumstances, i.e., the circumstances described in drinking, i.e., the AA, in a question and answer with the Otax secretary on May 30, 2013.

From 200 to 2011, the instant land was cultivated by twoA before it was cultivated.

C. The rice direct payments stated that they were deducted from the rent, and that they were present in the court of first instance as witnesses.

At the time of enforcing the rice Direct Payment System in 2001, two AA cultivated the land of this case, and two AAAA

1〜2년 경작한 후 자신이 이를 경작하였으며, 원고가 이 사건 토지를 경작하지 않으면

In addition, the application for rice subsidies was made, and the rent was 80 km 9 g per annum, and part of the rent was 00 g.00 g.

는 현금으로 지급하였는데, 2007년 내지 2008년에는 임대료 일부를 원고의 은행계좌에 송금하였으며, 원고의 거듭된 부탁이나 요청으로 작성된(원고는 이AA를 3회 찾아갔다) 갑 제11호증(사실확인서, 2007년부터 2011년까지 이AA가 경작하였다는 취지)은 사실과 다르다는 취지로 증언한 점, ② 김AA는 2013. 6. 3. OO세무서 국세조사관과의 문답에서 이 사건 토지를 3〜4년 정도 경작하였고, 그 후에는 두AA가 1년 정도 경작하였으며, 임대료는 백미 9가마인데, 그 중 일부는 백미로 일부는 현금으로 지급하였다고 진술하였고, 이 법정에 증인으로 출석하여 자신이 이 사건 토지를 3년간 경작하는 동안 직불금은 돈이 아닌 비료로 지급받았고, 그 후 두AA가 1년간 경작하였다고 증언한 점, ③ 두AA가 2013. 5. 31. OO세무서 국세조사관과의 문답에서 이 사건 토지를 이AA가 경작하기 직전 1년간 경작하였고, 그 전에는 김AA가 경작하였다고 진술한 점, ④ 농지의 실제 경작 농민에게 현금을 지급하는 논농업직접지불제는 2001년 시행된 점, ⑤ 원고는 1996년부터 2001년까지 장의사업을 하였고, 2001년부터 2003년까지 유한회사 OO의 대표이사로서 건설업을 영위하였으며, 2003년에는 여관업과 묘지이장 서비스업을 영위한 점, ⑥ 원고는 농작업일지, 농기계주유내역, 비료 등 농약 구입영수증, 연도별 농산물 및 출하내역 등과 같은 객관적인 자료를 제출하지 못한 점, ⑦ 원고가 2001년부터 2003년까지 추곡선금으로 지급받은 금원은 1년 평균 약60만 원인데, 이는 1996년 백미 80kg 1가마의 수매대금이 약 14만 원인 사실에 비추어 4가마 정도의 수매대금에 불과하여 그 수매량이 이 사건 토지 면적 3,967㎡에 비하여 지나치게 적은 점 등을 종합해 보면, 김AA가 1998년부터 2000년까지 이 사건 토지를 경작하였고, 두AA가 2001년, 이AA가 2002년부터 2011년까지 경작한 것으로 보인다.

In light of this, the fact that the Plaintiff entered the farmland ledger as a farmer, 2002 and 2003

A person eligible for the annual direct payments system is the Plaintiff, and the details of the Plaintiff’s bank transactions in 196.

From 2003 to 2003, the amount equivalent to the rent has not been paid by the KimA, 2A, and thisA.

In addition, the plaintiff submitted a note related to the payment of rent after 2008, and the plaintiff's OO pesticide.

It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land from 1996 to 2003 by stating in the letter of guarantee, the statement in the letter of guarantee (including the number of pages) stating that he/she provided the Plaintiff with a light to the Plaintiff’s self-defluence, and a transfer of a letter of guarantee (including the number of pages) to the effect that he/she purchased pesticides, etc., and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s No. 2 (the meta submitted by this A to a national tax investigator in 2007)

Even if the purport of paying the Do rent is stated in the statement in the Evidence No. 11 (the above fact-finding certificate in the name of thisA), it is recognized that the Do rent was cultivated from 2007, and that the Do rent was cultivated in the instant land for one year to 2A, and that the Do rent was cultivated in the instant land for three years from 1996 to 2002. Thus, the period during which the Do rent was directly cultivated in the instant land is only seven years from 1996 to 2002.

Therefore, the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for 8 years from 1996 to 2003.

On the premise that the defendant denies the application of capital gains tax reduction and exemption is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

F. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is justified.

The appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.