Cho Jae-2015-west-5650 ( October 28, 2016)

8 The disposition denying the application for reduction or exemption is legitimate.

There is no evidence to prove that the land was cultivated directly for a period of eight years, and it does not constitute a ground for reduction or exemption for a period of eight years.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2016Gudan5165 transfer detailed and revocation of disposition

Chapter AA

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

March 8, 2017

March 22, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 229,141,610 and special rural development tax of KRW 16,056,030 for the Plaintiff on September 1, 2015 shall be revoked in entirety.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired the instant land on June 27, 198 and transferred on April 2, 2013, 201, ○○○○○○-dong x x x site size (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On June 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a report on the transfer income tax following the transfer of the instant land by applying Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, stating that the instant land was cut to the Defendant for at least eight years.

C. However, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff did not own the instant land for at least eight years; (b) denied the application of Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act; and (c) on September 1, 2015, rendered a disposition imposing KRW 229,141,610 and special rural development tax for the Plaintiff in 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On November 17, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on January 28, 2016.

No ground for recognition exists, and there is no dispute over Gap's No. 1, 2, and Eul's No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff acquired the instant land from 197 to 1997, the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant land directly was unlawful on a different premise, since it was a rice farmer who had been directly engaged in for at least eight years in the instant land.

B. Determination

1) Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015) provides that income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree among land directly cultivated by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree, who resides in the seat of farmland for at least eight years, shall be exempted from capital gains tax. Article 66(4) and (13) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the direct cultivation by such method as prescribed by Presidential Decree" means "the direct cultivation by such method as prescribed by Presidential Decree" means "the cultivation by not less than 1/2 of the farming work on his/her own land with his/her own labor for at least eight years from the time of its acquisition until the time of its transfer." Meanwhile, the burden of proving capital gains tax exemption requirements is against a taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du43725, Oct. 27, 2016; Supreme Court Decision 2015Nu26575, Apr. 26, 2016).

2) According to Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 6-1 through 4, it is true that 00, 00, 000, △△△△△, △△△△, and △△△△, written statements stating the purport consistent with the plaintiff's assertion. However, on the other hand, the following circumstances recognized in light of the overall purport of testimony and arguments of △△△△△△ and △△△△△△△, which are all recognized in light of the following circumstances, namely, the purport of the testimony and arguments of the △△△△△△△ and △△△△△△△△△△△, and △△△△, which are recognized in light of the overall purport of the testimony and arguments of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and △△△△, which stated that the plaintiff transferred the land of this case to ○○△△△△△△△△△, which were written on behalf of the plaintiff at the time of their self-sufficiency of this case, were not found to have any specific and consistent with the grounds for 9 of the Plaintiff’s.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

4. Conclusion

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