Suwon District Court 2012Guhap8459 (2013.05)

It is difficult to recognize land as being a direct self-defense for not less than eight years.

In light of the Plaintiff’s age, occupation and activity period, place of residence, etc., it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for not less than eight years, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The period to see that the Plaintiff could have directly cultivated the instant land during the period during which the Plaintiff possessed the instant land, does not reach eight years.

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

2013Nu18027 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Park AA

Head of Central Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap8459 Decided June 5, 2013

November 20, 2013

December 18, 2013

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 the capital gains tax OOO or the special rural development tax imposed on the Plaintiff on May 24, 2011 shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

2. From 1. to 2. The plaintiff's argument that the disposition of this case is legitimate, the following facts are the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The term "in December 23, 1985, which is the second 4th th th 1985, shall be deemed to be "in December 26, 1985, 25, 25,05 square meters", and "in the last 3rd st st st st st th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th, 1985, 25 square meters", and "in the case of the land of this case, the last st st th th th th th th th th

① From April 1981, around April 1987, around November 1992, part of the south of the instant land was used as dry field, and it is unclear whether the remainder was used for any purpose, although it appears that it is not forest land.

② around May 1995, trees are planted on the north part of the instant land, and around May 200, the intermediate part of the instant land and the remaining end part of the instant land are deemed to be the site.

③ around September 2006, the planting area of trees on the north part of the instant land was larger than that of the relocation, and trees are planted in the middle part of the said part of the building site, and it is confirmed that part of the south part of the said part of the building site was used as dry field.

(4) On May 2009, around 2009, it can be known that dry field has been formed in part of the above intermediate part of the building site.

○ 4 2) All parts are as follows:

2) On April 12, 2010, with respect to the acquisition of land for public use by agreement between the Plaintiff and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, a land sale and sales contract and a obstacles compensation agreement were prepared on May 7, 2010.

The contract for the sale and purchase of the land of this case contains 5 weeks, 8 weeks, 94 weeks, 20 pigs, 101 weeks, 101 weeks, 71 weeks, 26 weeks, 116 weeks, 116 weeks, 21 weeks, etc., as obstacles to the land of this case.

In addition, the above obstacle water compensation agreement states that "the said obstacle is recorded as dynasium, swine and tree 25-years and 101-years and 71-years and 26-years and 30-years and 30-years and 116-years and 40-years and 21-years and 30-years and 40-years and 21-years and 40-years," and "the Korea Land and Housing Corporation notified the Defendant on November 8, 2010 that the land in this case is not subject to farming compensation", "the first three-years below the 5ths and added the following to the firsts," "BB development corporation (hereinafter referred to as "BB development") was established on December 31, 199 and commenced business around February 1, 200." The land in this case is used as food materials cultivated as the pertinent Act and subordinate statutes.

“The evidence Nos. 5-7, 8, 8, 34, 37, 1, 39-1, 2, 3, and 14-2 of the evidence Nos. 14 shall be added to the evidence Nos. 5-7, 8, 3, 3, and 14 at the lower end of the five pages [based on recognition], and 2.”

A. Even if the fact that land has been cultivated as farmland is recognized, it is not presumed that the owner is not the owner of the land, but the fact that the land has been cultivated as farmland must be proved by the transferor who asserts such fact (Supreme Court Decision 92Nu11893 delivered on July 13, 1993).

In addition, Article 66 (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Dec. 2, 2012) stipulates that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own land or growing or growing them with his/her own labor by at least half of farming work.

B. Based on this, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the facts acknowledged earlier and the evidence revealed earlier, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land as farmland for not less than eight years and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. The instant disposition is lawful.

1) First, the part of the instant land, which is probable to have been used as farmland for at least eight years until the Plaintiff acquired and transferred, is merely a part of the remaining part. The reasons are as follows.

① Although the number of lost trees planted on the north side of the instant land is included in the number of lost trees, in view of images, etc. taken by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation at the time of their acquisition through consultation (No. 8-2), the above trees are not deemed to have been managed through agricultural works, and it is deemed that the said trees were left unattended without any specific management activities to resolve the lost value, even though there is a large amount of receipt of lost trees.

② The intermediate part of the instant land was a site around May 200. However, around September 2006, some trees were planted, and a dry field was formed in another part around May 2009, and there was money in the remaining parts.

③ A dry field was used as a dry field on September 2006 for a considerable portion of the remaining part of the instant land, and only the remainder appears to have been a dry field since its acquisition.

2) In light of the following Plaintiff’s age, occupation, activity period, residence, etc., the period during which the Plaintiff could have directly cultivated the farmland during which the Plaintiff possessed the instant land does not extend to eight years.

① Before June 25, 1996, the Plaintiff appears to have resided in the OOdong in the OOOdong and thereafter returned to its own hospital located in the OOOodong. The instant land is more than 30 kilometers from the above Seoul and the hospital, and more than 10 kilometers away from the above OO, and it is difficult to expect a direct cultivation of the instant land during the period from April 1, 1986 to January 8, 2003, during which the Plaintiff, a student of the year 1941, opened the hospital.

② During the period of possession of the instant land, approximately seven years and seven months remain, except for the period under the above paragraph (1), and the Plaintiff was in office as a director or representative director of BB development since June 24, 2005.

3) There are the following circumstances suspected of having not been continuously cultivated by the Plaintiff.

① There are circumstances in which the employees of BB development operating a restaurant while advertising that crops cultivated in the farmland part among the instant land were used as food materials, appears to have performed most of the operations of selling, managing, and harvesting crops.

② Some of the receipts submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence for purchasing materials used for the cultivation of the instant land between April 2001 and May 2010 were modified.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.