Busan District Court-2013-Gu Partnership-3970 (Law No. 11, 2014)

1/2 or more of the agricultural works necessary for the cultivation of crops shall be engaged in the cultivation of crops for the purpose of being exempted from the reduction of or exemption from one-half or more years old farmland.

From August 2002 to July 2004, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was engaged in the cultivation of agricultural products or engaged in at least 1/2 of the farming works necessary for the cultivation during the period from July 2005 to December 2010, when the instant land was leased as a closed-down yard.

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

2014Nu21783 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

FF Head of FF Tax Office

Busan District Court Decision 2013Guhap3970 Decided July 11, 2014

December 12, 2014

December 19, 2014

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 imposition of capital gains tax OOOO on February 1, 2013 rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The issues of the instant case

The Plaintiff: (a) sold the instant land to B on September 22, 201; and (b) completed the registration of transfer of ownership on October 4, 201, on the ground that he/she directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years, pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income tax with the total amount of KRW OOOOOOOOOOO2, O2, 4026-1, 696 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

However, on December 21, 2012, the Defendant denied the application of capital gains tax reduction or exemption under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the grounds that the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have cultivated the instant land directly for at least eight years, and issued a decision of correction of capital gains tax on December 26, 201, imposing the Plaintiff a total amount of KRW OOOO of capital gains tax and KRW OOOO of additional tax in bad faith, and issued a prior notice of taxation thereon to the Plaintiff on December 26, 201, and imposed the said capital gains tax and additional tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

According to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66(13) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a person who resides in a farmland has been engaged in cultivating crops on his own farmland for not less than eight years or has cultivated not less than 1/2 of farming works on his own labor, the total amount of capital gains tax on income accruing from the transfer of his own farmland shall be reduced. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff may be deemed to be a person who engages in cultivating crops on the instant land or who has cultivated with not less than 1/2 of his own labor for more

B. Judgment of the court of the first instance

(4) The court of first instance held that the Plaintiff had no longer than 10 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m4 m3 m3 m3 m4 m4 m4 m3 6m2 m4 m3 8 m4 m3 6m2 m3 m3 6m2 m2 m3 4 m3 6m2 m3 4 m3 4 m2 m3 4 m3 4 m3 6m2 4 m2 6m2 4 m2 4 m3 4 m2 4 m2 4 m3 4 m2 6 m2 4 m2 4 m3 4 m2 4 m2 4 m2 4 m3 4 m2 199

2. The judgment of this Court and the citing the judgment of the first instance court

The Plaintiff asserts that, except for the period of suspension of cultivation by leasing the instant land to a scrap metal retailer, the Plaintiff continued to do so even while carrying on business or employment.

However, in light of the overall circumstances cited by the judgment of the court of first instance, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above facts solely with the statement of evidence Nos. 20 through 23 (including paper numbers) submitted by the plaintiff at the court of first instance, and the testimony of EE by the witness at the court of first instance, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the judgment of the court of first instance, which rendered the instant disposition lawful

Therefore, the reasoning of this court’s explanation concerning this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the foregoing addition. Thus, this court’s explanation is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal against it is dismissed as it is without merit.