No person shall be deemed to have cultivated directly for more than 8 years.

It is insufficient to recognize that the land in this case is engaged in cultivating crops on a regular basis or directly cultivating at least 1/2 of the farming works with his own labor, and thus the initial disposition is lawful.

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

2015Gudan31224 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

September 9, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 194,092,850 for the Plaintiff on August 11, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 2, 1995, the Plaintiff acquired and owned an O-dong 641 square meters, 671 square meters, 64-2 539 square meters, 64-3 square meters, 661 square meters, 64-4 square meters, 539 square meters, 64-5 square meters, and 430 square meters, 64-5 square meters, and 430 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”), and transferred the instant land on June 7, 2010.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that he cultivated the instant land directly for at least eight years upon filing a preliminary return of capital gains tax, and applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, but the Defendant conducted an investigation into the instant land, and deemed that the Plaintiff did not cultivate more than half of the farming work from the instant land with his own labor, and thus, the provision on reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for self-employed farmland was not applied, and on August 11, 2014, notified the Plaintiff of KRW 194,092,850 for capital gains tax reverted to the year 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 25, 2014, but was dismissed on February 23, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for not less than 8 years after acquiring the instant land, the instant disposition denying the instant land is unlawful even though it constitutes reduction and exemption of self-arable farmland.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010) and Article 66(1) and (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012) provide that a resident shall directly cultivate the relevant farmland while living in a Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant farmland is located for at least eight years, or in an area within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the relevant farmland location or within a 20km radius from the relevant farmland. In this case, the term "direct cultivation" means that a resident is constantly engaged in cultivating or cultivating crops or perennial plants with his/her own labor, or cultivating or cultivating more than half of farming works with his/her own labor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du4990, Apr. 19, 201).

2) In full view of the evidence and the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of the pleadings, including evidence as mentioned above, including evidence Nos. 2-1 through 5, as to the instant case, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was engaged in the cultivation of agricultural products in the instant land or directly cultivating not less than 1/2 of the farming work with his own labor during the period of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

○ From May 15, 1999 to September 20, 2007, the Plaintiff operated the restaurant under the name of OOO 236-4 from OOO 236-4 from 2007, and worked as an insurance solicitor from 2005 to 2010. The period for which the Plaintiff can cultivate directly after acquiring the instant land seems to have been extremely limited.

○ With respect to the instant land, a recipient of subsidies for preserving rice income from 2005 to 2008

This is confirmed to be D.

As seen earlier, in light of the fact that a third party cultivated the instant land from 2005 to 2008, the possibility that a third party cultivated the instant land even during the period during which the Plaintiff operated a restaurant or worked as an insurance solicitor cannot be ruled out.

The evidence submitted by ○○ is merely a third party's confirmation confirming that the Plaintiff cultivated directly, and there was no specific evidence related to the Plaintiff's actually cultivated.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.