early 201J 2434 ( November 15, 2011)

It is recognized that farmland is farmland at the time of transfer, but it is difficult to recognize the fact.

It is reasonable to see that the current status of use at the time of the transfer of land is farmland, but there is no specific material to see that the person directly cultivated the land by inserting his own labor, and there is no objective material to see that the person directly cultivated the land for eight years or longer because of the lack of objective

2012Guhap1861 Revocation of disposition of revocation of capital gains tax rectification

Section AA

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

November 2, 2012

December 14, 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 for the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on April 14, 201 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 24, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 1/2 shares of the same 1,110 square meters among the 000 1,000 square meters and the 643 square meters of the same Odong-dong 000, Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Sungnam-si, and transferred public land to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on July 7, 2009.

B. On September 30, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) on the ground that he/she resided in the location of the above land for at least eight years and cultivated it directly, while filing a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax following the transfer of the above land located in

C. However, on April 14, 2011, the Defendant, as a result of the on-site investigation, excluded the application of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the ground that “the land located in Sungnam-si is not farmland at the time of transfer”, and applied the reduction and exemption provisions on land for public services pursuant to Article 77 of the Special Taxation Act, and notified the Plaintiff of 000 capital gains tax (including additional tax) for the transfer income tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On June 23, 2011, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, caused a request for a trial to the Tax Tribunal, and was dismissed on November 15, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence, Gap evidence 2-2, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

As above, among the land for which the Plaintiff applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, 1/2 shares of 1/2 of 000 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) among the land for which the Plaintiff applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax shall be applied as the self-arable farmland under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The instant disposition denying the application of the capital gains tax reduction and exemption provisions on self-arable land is lawful, since the instant land was not used as farmland at the time of transfer, and even if it was considered farmland, the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the instant land was farmland at the time of transfer

According to the evidence No. 2-2, evidence No. 10-10, evidence No. 11-1-3, and evidence No. 11-3, it is recognized that the land category of the instant land is "before", and property tax has been imposed on the instant land from 2001 to 2009, and that the current status of the appraisal report prepared at the time of expropriation is "before". According to the above facts, it is reasonable to regard the current status of the use of the instant land as farmland at the time of transfer. Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 2, it is reasonable to regard the current status of the land as farmland at the time of transfer. Meanwhile, it is difficult to conclude that the entire land of this case was being used as a site other than farmland, even though there was only one material storage substitute for the instant land, and on these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the entire land of this case was used as a site other than farmland. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(2) Whether the plaintiff was self-appellant

조세특례제한법 제69조 제1항 소정의 '직접 경작'에 관하여 같은 법 시행령(2012. 2. 2. 대통령령 제23590호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제66조 제13항은 '거주자가 그 소유농 지에서 농작물의 경작 또는 다년생 식물의 재배에 상시 종사하거나 농작업의 2분의 1 이상을 자기의 노동력에 의하여 경작 또는 재배하는 것을 말한다'고 명확하게 규정하고 있다. 따라서 '2분의 1 이상 자기 노동력'의 의미를 문리대로 해석하여 농지를 직접 경작하였는지 여부를 판단하여야 할 것이고(대법원 2010. 9. 30. 선고 2010두8423 판 결 참조)， 자경농지에 대한 양도소득세 감면요건으로서 양도한 토지를 8년 이상 직접 경작한 사실에 대한 입증책임의 양도소득세의 감면을 주장하는 납세의무자에게 있다 (대법원 1994. 10. 21. 선고 94누996 판결 등 참조). 살피건대， 갑 제8호증의 1 내지 4， 갑 제9， 12호증의 각 기재에 의하면， 원고는 이 사건 토지를 취득하기 전인 1993. 12. 31.경부터 보유 기간 내내 그 소재지인 성남시 일원에서 계속 거주하여 온 사실， 원고는 2009. 1경부터 2009. 7.경 사이에 씨앗， 농약， 비닐 등 농자재 4건 합계 000원 상당을 구입한 사실이 인정된다. 그러나 원고가 직접 자신의 노동력을 투입하여 직접 경작하였다고 볼 만한 구체적인 자료가 없고， 이 사건 토지가 1，100㎡로서 작은 규모가 아님에도 농작물의 수확내역이나 판매내역 등에 관한 객관적인 자료도 전혀 제출되고 있지 않다. 그러므로 앞의 인정사실만으로 원고가 8년 이상의 기간 동안 이 사건 토지를 직접 경작하였다고 인정하기 어렵고， 그밖에 갑 제4호증의 1， 2， 갑 제5호증의 1 내지 4， 갑 제6호증의 1， 2， 갑 제7호증， 갑 제14호 증의 1 내지 4의 각 기재 내지 영상 및 증인 권QQ의 증언만으로 원고의 자경사실을 인정하기 부족하다.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-Cultivating farmland is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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