8. Whether or not the person has become a minor

No reduction or exemption shall be granted on the ground that there is no objective evidence as to the fact that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the relevant land for at least eight years.

Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Suwon District Court 2014Gudan390 ( October 24, 2015)

Red00

00.Tax Secretary

oly 2015.06

oly 2015.24

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 97,478,033 on May 1, 2014 by the defendant of the Gu office against the plaintiff on May 1, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 31, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the land owned by the Plaintiff to another person the land of 00:00 Doo 000 Doo 2206 m2,206 m2, which is farmland owned by the Plaintiff, and filed a report of capital gains tax reduction or exemption on the ground of farmland substitute land. On June 15, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired the land substitute land of 00 Doo 00 m20 Doo 00 m20 m20 m200 m200 m2 (hereinafter “the land substitute land”).

B. On May 1, 2014, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s reduction of and exemption from the Plaintiff’s farmland on the ground that the Plaintiff did not do so after having acquired the instant substitute farmland, and issued the instant disposition to rectify and notify the transfer income tax of KRW 97,478,03 (including additional tax) for the year 2009.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on June 3, 2014, but was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Entry B as Evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff directly cultivated after acquiring the substitute farmland in this case, it constitutes the requirements for reduction of capital gains tax pursuant to the substitute farmland in this case.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 67 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "Direct cultivation" means that "a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his own land or cultivating or growing them with his own labor." Here, "the cultivation or growing with one half or more of the farming work with his own labor can be abused as a means of tax evasion." Further, the burden of proving "direct farming" as a requirement of reduction or exemption of transfer income tax is against a taxpayer who asserts reduction or exemption of transfer income tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu96, Oct. 21, 1994). In addition, the plaintiff's assertion that "direct farming" as a requirement of reduction or exemption of transfer income tax is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff continued to cultivate the farmland of this case with 1/2 or more of the farming work of this case after acquiring the farmland of this case and the testimony of 1/2 or more of the increase or decrease of 13 years with his own labor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff transferred the farmland of this case 20-year farmland of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.