Cho Jae-2016- Daejeon-2372 (No. 12, 2016)

Whether the claimant has cultivated the farmland directly for at least eight years;

In light of the fact that the claimant fails to present objective evidence to prove that the farmland in question was self-sufficient after his retirement in addition to the confirmation of neighboring residents, this case is judged to be without fault.

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

Cheongju District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-1990 ( October 22, 2017)

강@@

o Head of the tax office

6.01. 201

2, 2017.06

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of refusal to request the correction of capital gains tax on December 24, 2015 against the Plaintiff and disposition of capital gains tax on November 5, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 24, 1981, the Plaintiff acquired the registration of initial ownership of 5 paddy field 2,572 square meters in the name of the Plaintiff before the merger. The Plaintiff already completed each registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on July 23, 1981 **** 1,917 square meters in the name of the Plaintiff, 1,946 square meters in the name of the Plaintiff, and *** 6,435 square meters in the name of 6,435 square meters in the name of 6,435 square meters in the form of ** 3,955 square meters in the form of 3,950 square meters in the form of 2,480 square meters in the form of 13, 1981.

B. On February 10, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the land in KRW 260 million to an agricultural company***** a limited liability company, and transferred the land in KRW 420 million on February 26, 2015***** a corporation on February 26, 2015.

C. On March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 17,51,270 of the transfer income tax for farmland substitute land under Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) to the Defendant on March 10, 2015, by applying the reduction and exemption of transfer income tax for farmland substitute land under Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and on October 28, 2015, the Plaintiff directly cultivated each of the instant land within 30km in a straight line from each of the instant land and filed a claim for correction that the transfer of each of the said land constitutes the reduction and exemption of transfer income tax under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and that the transfer of each

D. After conducting a field investigation of capital gains tax on each of the instant lands from September 7, 2015 to September 15, 2015, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on November 5, 2015 after excluding the reduction or exemption of income accrued after December 7, 198 as incorporated each of the instant lands into residential areas, etc., and imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff for the year 2015, and on December 24, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a request for correction (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”). As for the Plaintiff’s request for correction, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff was self-employed from around 209, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff cultivated at least 1/2 of crops with its own labor, and thus the initial report is legitimate” (hereinafter “the disposition of refusal for imposition of capital gains tax and the disposition of refusal for correction for the year 2015”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Before the moving-in report* on May 11, 2009, the Plaintiff resided in an area within 30km from the pertinent farmland as a straight line. As such, the Plaintiff constitutes a resident at the seat of farmland under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26922, Jan. 22, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act”). In addition, the Plaintiff retired from office and his father died before 199, and cultivated each of the land of this case to the same household, or cultivated with the help of a farmer under the responsibility and calculation of the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff did not directly mistake that each of the land of this case for 8 years or longer meets the requirements of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 69 (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Even if it is recognized that land has been cultivated as farmland, the owner is not presumed to have done so, and the fact that the land has been cultivated as farmland must be proved by the person who asserts such fact (Supreme Court Decision 92Nu11893 delivered on July 13, 1993).

In light of the above legal principles and the relevant statutes, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff owned the instant land for not less than eight years, and the entry of the evidence No. 12 in the evidence No. 12 is not sufficient to recognize it solely on the basis of the following circumstances, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the respective entries and arguments in Gap's 3, 8, 11, 13, 14, and Eul's 3, 4, and 7, and the overall purport of oral arguments, ① from among those who prepared a confirmation document confirming the plaintiff's own landscape for not less than eight years, * means only that they have affixed the above confirmation document at the plaintiff's request from the defendant's on-site investigation, * sulfur**, sulfur*, sulfur*, *, *'s right*'s statement about each land of this case ** *'s 205, 205, 200, 205, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00.

Therefore, even if the plaintiff is a resident of farmland in accordance with the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, since the plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of "self-regulation for not less than eight years" under the above Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, each of the dispositions of this case premised on

3. Conclusion

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

June 22, 2017