Appropriateness of the disposition excluding the application for reduction of gift tax by deeming the donated farmland as factory site, etc.

It is reasonable to regard that a factory site necessary for the operation of a factory is used as a site or its appurtenant land, not a farming shed necessary for the cultivation of fruit trees, and thus a disposition excluded from the application of gift tax reduction

Article 58 (Exemption of Gift Tax on Farmland, etc. Given to Farming Children)

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 gift tax of KRW 24,641,260 against the Plaintiff on July 10, 2007 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 26, 2003, the Plaintiff donated four parcels of land including 1,081m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Kim ○○-ju and Hong ○○-si, Jeju-si, Jeju-do, 000 miscellaneous land (hereinafter “the instant land”). On February 13, 2004, the Plaintiff reported gift tax on February 13, 2004, and filed an application for reduction of KRW 201,946,020 on the ground that the said donated land falls under the donated farmland.

B. On July 10, 2007, the Defendant imposed a disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 40,662,010 on the ground that the instant land and the instant land, Jeju-do, 000 square meters among 926 square meters in a orchard of 000,00,000 per annum, was not farmland as land for a factory and its appurtenant land (hereinafter “Disposition of imposition at the beginning”).

C. On October 1, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal. On December 31, 2007, the National Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to correct the tax base and tax amount and dismiss the remainder of the appeal by the Plaintiff on the ground that it constitutes farmland with 902.51 square meters in the Jeju-si ○○1 Dong 2211 m26 m26 m2.

D. According to the above decision of the National Tax Tribunal on January 21, 2008, the Defendant corrected the amount of gift tax against the Plaintiff from the first 40,662,010 won to the amount of 24,641,260 won, and notified the Plaintiff thereof (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul 1, 2, 4, 12 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff cultivated orchard near the instant land. Since the factories on the instant land have been used as a warehouse necessary for operating orchard, such as de facto storing fertilizers, composts, walsss, etc. harvested, etc., and thus, it constitutes a farming shed, which is an essential facility for farmland management. The remainder of the land is used as a farm, etc. necessary for access to orchard, even though the instant land is used as farmland, it is illegal to impose gift tax by deeming it as land for factory and its appurtenant land rather than the instant land as farmland.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 58 (Exemption of Gift Tax on Farmland, etc. Given to Farming Children)

C. Determination

In order to recognize that the farming children who are eligible for exemption from gift tax pursuant to Article 15 (2) of the Addenda to the Restriction of Special Taxation Act are farmland donated, they shall be the land actually used for farming regardless of the land category on the public cadastral book, and they shall also be included in the farming shed, compost, pumping station, branch, district, waterway, etc. which are directly required for farmland management.

Therefore, in full view of the facts as to whether the land of this case is farmland, Eul evidence Nos. 2-7 through 15, Eul evidence Nos. 8-11, and Eul evidence Nos. 8 through 11, the land of this case has a negligence-manufacturing factory with the trade name of '○○○ Special Product' operated by the plaintiff's father, Kim ○○, the father of the plaintiff, and the 1st floor of the above factory is used as a work room, product storage room, conference room, etc. manufacturing of various kinds of fruits, such as oil and sitrus harvested harvested for the fruit-processing, and storage of storage facilities and boiler facilities, etc. to store various tools. According to the above facts, the remaining parts of the land of this case except the above factory site are mainly packed with concrete, and used as the workplace or access road of the above factory, etc., and according to the above facts, the land of this case can not be seen as being used as the land of this case as necessary for the plaintiff's operation of the special land of this case or its own site.

Therefore, the instant disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant land does not constitute farmland is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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