It is difficult to see that the farmland was directly depreciated.

In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff has earned income exceeding 50 million won per year, most of the farming operations depend on human resources in the case of cultivating fruit trees, and the fact that the Plaintiff did not have been involved in planting fruit trees, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was directly involved in the farmland at issue.

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

2013Guhap10832 Such disposition shall be revoked.

KimA

Head of North Daegu Tax Office

September 27, 2013

November 29, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of the capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on December 11, 2012 by the Defendant is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. On April 3, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership in its own name with respect to the shares of 1,157/1,755 square meters (hereinafter "the instant land") of OO-dong 694 PO-dong O-dong 695 square meters (hereinafter "O-dong 694"). On September 11, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership in its own name with respect to the remaining shares of 598/1,755 square meters of the instant land. On November 25, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of donation in its own wife 755/1,755 shares on the ground of the instant land."

C. Upon filing a preliminary return of capital gains tax on April 3, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the ground that the instant land constitutes “self-Cultivating farmland for at least eight years pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act” and “D. The Defendant, on December 7, 2012, determined and notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff does not directly cultivate the instant land for at least eight years (hereinafter “instant disposition”).” and “E. The Plaintiff filed a request for review on February 28, 2013, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision of dismissal on April 26, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff cultivated or cultivated a multi-living plant by planting fruit trees, such as side white trees, pyo, and sublime, on the instant land between September 27, 2002 and January 27, 2012, which was the date of the transfer of the instant land from April 2002, and around nine years to October 27, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land, the Defendant’s disposition of this case on the premise that the instant land does not constitute self-farmland for at least eight years is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On October 6, 2012, with respect to the background leading up to the development of the instant land by Kim E-E, which operated the DF, the details of the written confirmation (Evidence A No. 11) prepared by the Plaintiff on October 6, 2012 are as follows.

I confirmed that, from March 16, 2002 to April 4, 2002, I performed a construction work to create an orchard by using scrails and human parts, etc., at that time, he planted five-year-old and 120-year-old and six-year-old single-water and 1,00-year-old single-water and 1,00-year-old single-water and 1,00-year-old single-water at that time, and received at that expense the remainder and received on March 17, 202 the OOO OO on April 4, 2002.

2) The Plaintiff’s domicile during the retention period of the instant land is as follows.

Period

Address

The distance from the land of this case

From April 3, 2002 to May 4, 2007

OOO-gu O3 O3 16

approximately 1 km and approximately 30 km in lanes;

From May 4, 2007 to January 27, 2012

OO시 OO구 OO로 260 (FFF팰리스)

approximately 9.5km in straight line, approximately 30 minutes in lanes;

3) The Plaintiff’s earned income accrued during the instant holding period is as follows.

See Table 4 see Court Decision 4

4) The amount of annual revenue of GGG Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff served as the representative, is as follows.

Business year

206

2007

208

209

2010

2011

Revenue amount

( million0 million won)

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

5) From 2004 to 2004, Park H set up a letter of confirmation with the Defendant’s public official on September 26, 2013, which included an OO-Gu OCC 687 around the instant land.

Since 204, the above principal forms a ancient shed in the 687-dong CC, and has frequently seen the 694th land in this case. It is well known who the owner is, and there was no fact that the farmer has generated the farming house in the land in this case during the formation of the farming house, and the land in this case was too planted but too thicked, so it seems that there was no value to see that the trees in this case are influencing so far. From September 23, 2013 to 24 days, the trees in this case were extracted from a crucian, and they were stored on the land in this case, not on the land in this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 2 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66(1) and (13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act clearly stipulate that a resident shall directly cultivate the relevant farmland while residing in a Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant farmland is located for at least eight years, in an area within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the relevant farmland or in an area within a straight distance of 20km from the relevant farmland. At this time, "direct cultivation" means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland or cultivating or growing them with his/her own labor by interpreting the meaning of 1/2 or more of his/her own labor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010). Article 66(1) and (13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act stipulate that a farmer who claims for special rural development tax reduction or exemption under Article 4 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall not be imposed.

2) In light of the following circumstances known through the above facts, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for not less than eight years only with the descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 18 (including various numbers), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① Since the Plaintiff paid OOO to Kim E-E, which operates the DD Farm Center, and caused it to plant the instant land as an orchard and plant trees, the Plaintiff did not directly put the Plaintiff’s labor into the orchard.

② The Plaintiff is not recognized to have actively engaged in agriculture by obtaining any profit from the orchard created as above, and the fact that the said orchard seems to have been managed only by the minimum level, such as where trees are excessively thicked.

③ During the holding period of the instant land from 2001 to 2006, the Plaintiff worked in Daegu hydrosung Broadcasting Co., Ltd. III, with annual annual earned income spent in the same amount. From 2006 to the date of the instant transfer, the Plaintiff served as the representative of GGG Co., Ltd. in the construction and telecommunications business, and was the annual average earned income was the level of OOOO.

④ The location of the place of business and the domicile of the Plaintiff, both of which were employed by the Plaintiff during the retention period of the instant land, were located in OO-si located in the instant land at approximately 30 minutes away from the instant land to O-si. However, it does not seem that the Plaintiff with another occupation had been running the agricultural business from time to time at a considerable distance to cultivate the instant land that does not generate any particular profit

(5) In light of the legislative purpose of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act intending to prevent speculation of non-permanent farmland and revitalize the agriculture and rural economy by reducing the tax burden of self-employed farmers for not less than eight years, it is difficult to view that the degree of management of fruit trees intermittently for not less than eight years solely on the basis of the degree of managing fruit trees in a situation other than agriculture.

3. Conclusion

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