early 2010 Heavy1558 ( November 10, 2010)

Even if one received family's assistance, it can be viewed as self-sufficient if one led a farmer.

It seems that crops, such as rice, etc., were cultivated together with the family members living in the farmland and living together, and it is not easy to measure the quantity of farming work in a measurable manner. Thus, even if the plaintiff was led by his/her family, if he/she was led by his/her family, at least 1/2 of the farming work can be deemed as

2011Guhap1376 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Shin XX

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

August 17, 2011

October 12, 2011

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 42,502,670 against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 1, 1985, the Plaintiff acquired Liberia 000-0 Doz. 96 Doz. on May 29, 1986, and acquired 672.7 Doz. 4785 Doz. 4785 Doz. (hereinafter referred to as “the farmland of this case”) on May 29, 1986. The farmland of this case was expropriated at the time of Ansan on November 21, 2007.

B. On May 31, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) voluntarily assessed the farmland of this case to the Defendant for at least eight years; and (b) the transfer income tax

37,696,386 won was applied for reduction or exemption.

C. However, on August 1, 2009, the Defendant excluded the application of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 42,502,670, which reverts to the year 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On April 30, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on November 10, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute Gap evidence Nos. 12-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1 through 4, each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on Reduction and Exemption of Transfer Income Tax is applicable to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant farmland and the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant farmland with the assistance of MaB, his father, for at least eight years, and thus, the instant disposition excluding the Plaintiff’s acquisition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) From July 14, 1984 to the present date, the Plaintiff resided together with NewAA(OOri 00 on December 16, 192) (OOri 00 on the previous administrative district) and Mari-B, which was put in by SOri 0-0 (Ori 00 on the previous administrative district of Ansan-gun), and Mari-B. The farmland in this case is located far away from the above residential area and approximately 0.35km-2.1km.

(2) From June 1, 197 to February 27, 1995, the Plaintiff worked in the bamboo agricultural cooperatives and from February 28, 1995 to March 20, 2005 in the same coal agricultural cooperatives, from March 21, 2005, and from March 20, 2005, the Plaintiff worked in the same coal agricultural cooperatives. At the Plaintiff’s residence, the deceased agricultural cooperatives were 0.7 km in the Plaintiff’s residence, and the Orsan agricultural cooperatives were 71.07 km in the degree of 65.28 km in the same coal agricultural cooperatives.

(3) The farmland ledger of New A, drafted on October 8, 1990, entered the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife as a household member. On or before November 21, 2007, the time when the farmland of this case was expropriated, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff entered the said farmland in the name of 00-0 square meters, 941 square meters, 61 square meters prior to 000-00 square meters prior to 000-0, 6199, 00-0 square meters, 1,081 square meters, 00-0, 5,025 square meters, 00-0, 1,997 square meters, 00-0-0, 3,000-0, 200-2, 200-1, 300-1, 206, 200-1, 300-1, 206, 200-37, 208.

(4) The Plaintiff’s daily book prepared from October 1, 1995 to December 31, 2008 includes the following: (a) funeral board work; (b) field work; (c) field work; (d) field work; (d) field work; (e) field work; (e) field work; (e) field work; (e) field work cost payment details; and (e) field work cost payment details.

(5) The Plaintiff’s statement of the supply of farming materials of the bamboo agricultural cooperative stated that the Plaintiff’s father purchased light seeds and water-use soil from February 2, 2001 to February 2, 2008. From January 1, 2001 to June 10, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased agricultural chemicals and fertilizers equivalent to KRW 7,535,000 in total over 66 times from the same agricultural cooperative.

(6) From 2002 to 2007, the Plaintiff’s father received rice subsidies. From 2006 to 2009, the Plaintiff’s father received rice suled rice suled rice suled in the Ansan-do Agricultural Cooperative.

(7) On June 2006, the Plaintiff purchased one ton truck under its own name, and has a tomb board, and on the tax-free oil management ledger, the Plaintiff stated that new A purchases and owns a power train, a power gun, and a power propelling machine around July 8, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 3, 6 through 12 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 3, 7, and 9, witness KR's partial testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In light of the above facts, it seems that the Plaintiff cultivated plants, such as rice, etc. in the farmland of this case, together with newA and HaB, the Plaintiff, who resided in the farmland of this case and living together with his wife, and had been engaged in cultivating the farmland of this case. Although the receipt of subsidies, selling rice, purchasing agricultural materials, and purchasing agricultural machinery, etc. were performed in the Plaintiff’s name, the farmland owned by the Plaintiff was up to 28,185 square meters including the farmland of this case until the farmland of this case is expropriated, and the farmland thereafter owned is up to 46,358 square meters including the farmland of this case, and it was difficult for the Plaintiff’s wife, who is the father or female of this case, who is the aged 89 years old, to cultivate the farmland of this case, was not easy. According to the above books, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff had led the Plaintiff to cultivate the farmland of this case, including farmland of this case, for a period of 2 years or more, and even if it was not easy for the Plaintiff to have been led by the Plaintiff’s own labor.

Therefore, the disposition of this case which excluded the application of Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is unlawful, and the plaintiff's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.