beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 30, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on June 12, 2008, with respect to 6.5/10 of the share of 5,663 square meters (hereinafter “the farmland in this case”) prior to Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, which was the father B, for the donation.
B. The Plaintiff, as a farming child, received the donation of the instant farmland from a self-employed farmer B, and accordingly, applied for reduction of or exemption from gift tax pursuant to Article 71 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same), and the Defendant reduced or exempted gift tax on September 29, 2008.
C. Around February 2013, the Defendant issued a field confirmation against the Plaintiff for the post-management of the farmland donated by farming children, and then imposed KRW 66,114,070 on May 10, 2013 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was a public official engaged in farming as a side business for the period of 20 years, and that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having been engaged in farming continuously for three years or more retroactively from the time of donation of the farmland in this case.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 19, 2013, but was dismissed on November 29, 2013.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, 11, Eul's 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff served as the police assigned for Macheon-si from 1981 to 2010. However, the Plaintiff only worked at night once every three days and cultivated the instant farmland by itself at the remaining time. The Plaintiff purchased and used agricultural machinery and farming goods necessary for the instant farmland cultivation in the name of the Plaintiff. From 2009 to 2012, the Plaintiff received subsidies for preserving rice income from Macheon-si and received subsidies for preserving rice income from Macheon-si, and made loans from the Agricultural Cooperative to purchase agricultural machinery.