Cho Jae-chul201 Jeon 4741 ( December 21, 2011)

It is difficult to recognize as being a serious one for not less than eight years.

It seems that the main occupation was the NA employee, and there was a limit in paying time to cultivate land in light of its position, etc., and that the NA employed a third party with agricultural machinery and carried out farming work, which alone is difficult to see that the 1/2 or more of farming work was cultivated by his own labor.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Guhap333 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Schedule AA

The Director of Budget Office

August 29, 2012

September 5, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on May 4, 2011 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

"A. The plaintiff acquired 2/3 shares of 4,954 square meters out of O00 O2, 00 m2, 000 m2 (hereinafter "the land in this case") from GabB on June 3, 1996, and transferred it again to GabB on December 30, 2008." However, the plaintiff filed a preliminary return of capital gains tax with the defendant on December 13, 2009, on the ground that the land in this case constitutes self-owned farmland for not less than eight years, pursuant to Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter "the Restriction of Special Taxation Act").

C. On May 4, 2011, the Defendant rendered a disposition of KRW 000 of the capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on the ground that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to regard the instant land as being self-employed for not less than eight years, and that the provision on reduction and exemption under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act was not applied, and that the instant land was subjected

D. On August 25, 201, the Plaintiff filed an objection to the imposition of capital gains tax, and revoked the excessive portion of the land for non-business use by the Daejeon District Tax Service on August 25, 201, and received a decision to dismiss the remaining claims, and the Defendant issued a disposition to reduce or correct capital gains tax on the Plaintiff at KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

E. On October 4, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the request on December 21, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 1, evidence 1, 2, 2, 3, 30, 31, and 32, and evidence 1, and evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s self-defluence based on the contents of the MaximumD and ParkE’s statement, but it is not reliable as it did not know of accurate facts. The Plaintiff and LeeF, a co-owner of the instant land, jointly leased agricultural machinery from Park GG and left rice farmers in the instant land, and received rice income direct payment from 2005 to 2007. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff did not self-defluence the instant land is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) The main content and principle of interpretation of the statute

Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that “The income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by the Presidential Decree, among the land which is subject to the agricultural income tax, which is directly cultivated by a resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of such land for not less than eight years, shall be reduced by 100/100, and Article 66(12) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 21196 of Dec. 31, 2008) provides that “direct cultivation” means that one resident is engaged in cultivating or cultivating crops or perennial plants on his own land at least half of the farming work, or by cultivating or cultivating them with his own labor at least one-half of the farming work.” Expanding or interpreting these provisions as favorable for the benefit of taxation without any reasonable reason, violates the basic principles of the tax law, and is thus subject to tax exemption or reduction, and thus, it shall be subject to strict interpretation of the aforementioned provisions that constitute the requirements for tax exemption or reduction under Article 69(13) of the same Act.

2) Determination as to whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land

According to the following circumstances, Gap evidence 6 through 15, and evidence 19-1 and 2, and ① the plaintiff received subsidies for rice income from the land of this case from 2005 to 2007, and ② the plaintiff purchased composts, etc. from 2007 and 2008, and ③ The plaintiff made and made a statement to the effect that part of the resident frame in the vicinity of the land of this case was made by leasing farming machines from GaF with GaF, a co-owner, and the plaintiff for farming, but it is difficult to find that the plaintiff had been engaged in cultivating the land of this case on a regular basis, or directly cultivated or cultivated the land of this case for at least 1/2 of the plaintiff's own labor force, in light of the following circumstances, it is hard to find that the plaintiff had no other evidence to prove that part of the resident frame near the land of this case was made by leasing farming machines from GaG with GaF, a co-owner, and written evidence 3 and 4, and some testimony of GaG.

A) During the period in which the Plaintiff owned the instant land, the Plaintiff worked as a director (from March 23, 2004 to March 23, 2004) and as a regular manager (from March 1, 2007 to March 31, 2007). From March 23, 2006 to 2008, the Plaintiff appears to have worked for agricultural cooperatives as an average of 00 won per year, and the Plaintiff’s primary occupation was deemed to have been working for agricultural cooperatives, and there was a limit in paying time for cultivating the instant land in light of its position, etc.

B) On January 14, 2011, the Plaintiff stated that the request for review on the legality of the taxation before taxation was submitted to the Defendant that “dry field farming company” was directly satisfed for more than 12 years from the land in this case, and that the same content was also stated in the certificate of facts of Park H and ParkB submitted thickness, and that the statement was changed as it was later “satch farming company.”

C) At the time of the Defendant’s on-site verification work on the instant land around March 201, 201, neighboring residents were unable to state the fact that the owner and the actual cultivator of the instant land were the Plaintiff, and MaximumD, one of the neighboring residents, was the Plaintiff, prepared a written confirmation from the instant land to the effect that ParkB, the former owner of the instant land, was replaced with Park G, the private village.

D) In this paper, rice farmers were frightened in most of the farming operations, frightening, and rice beer operations are conducted using agricultural machinery as a substitute, and even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff was employed by employing fright with agricultural machinery, such as farming machines owned by the Plaintiff, frightening, agricultural chemicals and fertilizers spraying, and compactass, and even if the Plaintiff divided other work without the need for agricultural machinery into fright, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff cultivated 1/2 or more of the farming operations with its own labor.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the Plaintiff’s direct cultivation of the instant land for eight years is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

partnership.