Cho Jae-chul201-Gu2297 (Law No. 19, 2011)

No person is engaged in direct farming and does not meet the requirements for gift tax reduction or exemption.

A farming child refers to a person who manages and cultivates farmland, etc. under his/her own responsibility without entrusting or lending it to another person. Since he/she comprehensively reviewed the details of occupation and testimony, he/she is merely an indirect management of agriculture, and thus cannot be seen as a farming child.

2011Guhap2783 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

NewA

Head of Namgu Tax Office

December 21, 2011

January 18, 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 KRW 11,083, and 200 against the Plaintiff on June 9, 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 24, 2006, the Plaintiff donated an amount of 000-0 m20 m2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”) to the Defendant on the ground that the instant land was donated to the Defendant on the ground that the farming child was the farmland donated. The Plaintiff filed an application for reduction and exemption of gift tax with the Defendant on the ground that the instant land was farmland for which the farming child was donated.

B. On June 9, 2011, the Defendant imposed KRW 11,083 and 200 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was not directly engaged in farming for two years before the date of donation and five years after the date of donation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 16, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

The Plaintiff’s attachment of the netB was difficult to catch a farmer due to a delay disorder, and the Plaintiff was residing in the vicinity of the instant land and cultivated the instant land directly. Although the Plaintiff was going to work, the use of the agricultural machinery does not require a large number of hours for farming work, and the instant disposition that the Plaintiff was not a farming child since it was not a farming child since it was not a farming child due to the use of the agricultural machinery.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. According to Article 58(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 5584 of Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 57(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a self-employed farmer resides in a Si/Gun/Gu, or a Si/Gun/Gu, where the farmland is located and has been directly engaged in farming for at least two years retroactively from the date of donation (hereinafter referred to as a "farmer"), he/she shall be exempted from gift tax on the value of the relevant farmland. The term "farmer" refers to a person who manages and cultivates the farmland under his/her own responsibility without entrusting or lending the farmland, etc. to another person, and even if he/she engages in farming concurrently, he/she falls under a child of farming, and if he/she is indirectly engaged in farming with any other occupation, he/she shall not be deemed to fall under the category of a child of agriculture, and if he/she is indirectly engaged in farming with any other occupation.

B. As of the date of donation, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff was a self-employed farmer as of the date of donation, and that the Plaintiff resided in the Si/Gun/Gu where the land of this case is located as of the date of donation at least 18 years, or the Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto, and thus, whether the Plaintiff was engaged directly in farming for two years prior to the date of donation and five years from the date of donation. The Plaintiff was engaged in ○ Automobile Co., Ltd. for two consecutive years prior to the date of donation and five consecutive years from the date of donation, and the witness Lee Sung-ho (a testimony from the date of request by the Plaintiff that received approximately KRW 700,000 won for four years from the date of donation to the date of donation, and that the Plaintiff had tried from the land of this case to the date of farming with the machinery of this case). In light of the witness Lee-ho (a testimony that received approximately KRW 700,000,000 from the land of this case), there is no evidence to acknowledge.

5. Conclusion

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