early 201J 3443 ( December 15, 2011)

No reason to see that a person was residing in the location of the farmland does not constitute a farmer.

Although resident registration has been made at the location of farmland as the domicile, there is no objective data to deem that the purchase of goods necessary for daily life in the vicinity of the farmland or bank transactions, such as cash entry and withdrawal, etc., and thus, it does not constitute farming children.

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of gift tax

XX

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

November 30, 2012

December 28, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 on September 1, 201 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 26, 2007, the Plaintiff donated 10,960 square meters of 10,960 square meters of 10,960 square meters of 106-1 and 9 parcels of land (hereinafter “the farmland in this case”) to the father of the Sinsung-si, the father of the Sinsung-si.

B. On April 2007, the Plaintiff, as a farming child, was given a donation of the farmland in this case to the Defendant by the said UAA, a self-employed farmer, pursuant to Article 71 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same), was granted a reduction or exemption of gift tax equivalent to KRW 000,000, on the ground that the Plaintiff was granted a donation

C. On September 1, 2011, the Defendant issued a correction and notification that the Plaintiff would pay gift tax of KRW 000 to the Plaintiff on September 1, 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the following grounds: (a) “The Plaintiff had resided in the Geisung-si, whose domicile is his/her resident registration address, inasmuch as he/she had resided in the 707 XX apartment 106 707 Dong, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, whose spouse and children’s domicile are his/her spouse and children.”

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 26, 201, but was dismissed on December 15, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was residing in the scarcity, which is the location of the said farmland at the time of donation of the said farmland, and met all the requirements of ‘agricultural children’ under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, such as directly cultivating the said farmland for at least three years. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Article 71(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "where a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who directly cultivates farmland, etc. while residing in the seat of farmland, etc. and residing in the seat of farmland, etc. and directly cultivates such farmland to a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree, the amount of tax equivalent to the total amount of gift tax on the value of the farmland, etc. shall be reduced or exempted." Article 68(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620, Feb. 22, 2008) requires "to reside in the Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland, etc. is located" or "to reside in the Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto."

(2) According to the following circumstances: (a) whether the Plaintiff actually resided in the YB 1, 3, 14, 15, 3-1, 4, and 5 of the evidence of evidence Nos. 1, 1, 4, and 5, the Plaintiff’s resident registration was made at the address of the Y 111, i.e.,, the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the 1000.

Therefore, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff denied the application of the provisions on gift tax reduction and exemption to farming children on the ground that the Plaintiff did not reside in the farmland of this case and imposed gift tax 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.