Cho High 2012 Before 3602 ( November 08, 2012)

The disposition of exclusion from reduction or exemption is legitimate because it is difficult to recognize it as a self-fluence of substitute farmland.

In light of the form of work and income amount, it is difficult to directly embelle a rice farmer in substitute farmland, and in light of the confirmation, statement, etc. of the location of farmland, it is difficult to deem that this Chapter is likely to have been by proxy, and that it meets the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax on substitute farmland.

2013Gudan173 Disposition of revoking capital gains tax

ThisAAA

The Director of the National Tax Service

June 28, 2013

July 26, 2013

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 2006 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 21, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred 1,636 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “previous farmland”) to OOO in Seocho-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, 000, and acquired 1,821 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “the substitute farmland in this case”) from OOOOOOOOOOO in Seoan-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul, on December 21, 2006, from OOOOOOOOO1,821 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the substitute farmland in this case”).

B. On December 29, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a report with the Defendant on capital gains tax following the transfer of the previous farmland, and applied for capital gains tax reduction or exemption for the farmland substitute land pursuant to Article 70 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), and transferred the instant substitute farmland to the ProfessorOO again on February 1, 2010. The Defendant: (a) as a result of the on-site verification, concluded that the Plaintiff was not directly cultivated the farmland of this case; (b) on February 1, 2012, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for capital gains tax reduction or exemption for the farmland substitute land, and (c) decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 (including additional tax for capital gains tax for the transfer of the previous farmland in 206 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff directly cultivated the farmland of this case for not less than three years, income from the transfer of the previous land constitutes the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Nevertheless, the disposition of this case, which did not recognize the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on a different premise, is light.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67(1) and (2) and (3)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1988 of Feb. 28, 2007) allow and guarantee a flexible substitution of farmland to protect self-employed farmers and encourage agriculture, and the subject of reduction and exemption should be interpreted to substitute the farmland acquired and cultivated by self-employed farmers for ‘the necessity for cultivation'. Therefore, in order to constitute reduction and exemption of capital gains tax due to substitute farmland, ① the previous land and newly acquired land shall be farmland, and ② the former land shall be cultivated for more than three years while residing in the previous farmland and resided in a new farmland, and ③ the person liable to pay capital gains tax shall begin to cultivate new farmland and cultivate new farmland within one year, and the new area of farmland to be acquired shall be more than two years, and the person liable to pay tax shall be more than one-third years of the value of the farmland which is directly or directly owned by the plaintiff.

2) In this case, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff is constantly engaged in the cultivation of crops or the growing of perennial plants on the instant substitute farmland for not less than three years, or is engaged in the cultivation of crops or the growing of perennial plants with his own labor, in full view of the following circumstances, as to whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant substitute farmland, and in addition to the entries in Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, and Eul evidence 3, and the testimony of HuO, as a whole, the whole purport of the pleadings.

A) From September 1995, the Plaintiff had been unable to directly embling rice farmers on the land of this case in addition to the above occupation in light of the OO Korea Co., Ltd. producing semiconductors, thereby working for 8 hours a day as a production worker and 000 won per year. However, in light of the above work form and amount of income, the Plaintiff could not directly embling rice farmers on the land of this case.

"나) 피고 소속 담당공무원이 2011. 9월경 현지출장조사 당시 이 사건 대토농지가 소재한 마을의 이장인 허OO은 '이 사건 대토농지를 현OO씨 소유일 때부터 본인이 모내기 등 전반적인 농사를 짓고 현OO씨로부터 도지를 받았고，소유권이 이전된 후에도 모내기 등 농사일을 하고 마지기당 0000원의 도지를 현OO씨에게 계속 받았으 며， 위 농지의 소유권이 이AAAA씨에게 이전된 것을 2009년 정도에 알았고， 이AAAA씨를 전혀 알지도 못하고， 본 적도 없다'는 내용의 확인서에 서명하였고， 이 법정에서도원고가 모 상자 들어주고 수확하는 작업만 도와주었고， 나머지 모내기 이후부터 수확할 때까지의 작업은 본인이 해주고 일당이 아닌 1년 품삯으로 마지기당 0000원 정도를 받았다'는 취지로 증언하였다. 또한 허OO은 2008년부터 2009년까지 이 사건 대토농지에 관하여 쌀소득보전직불금을 수령하였는데，이에 대하여 허OO은 이 법정에서 '원고의 허락을 받아 직불금을 수령하였다'고 증언하였다. 위와 같은 사정들에 비추어 보면， 허OO이 이 사건 대토농지를 대리경작하였을 가능성이 높다.",다) 원고는 매형인 현OO로부터 이 사건 대토농지를 구입하고 3년 1개월만에 다시 현OO에게 위 농지를 양도하였는데， 원고는 재판부의 요청에도 불구하고 이 사건 대토농지 매매의 구체적인 내용을 밝히거나 매매계약서나 매매대금 교부 자료 등을 제출하지 못하고 있는 점에 비추어 실제로 원고가 이 사건 대토농지를 구입한 것이 아니 라， 종전농지에 관한 양도소득세를 감면받을 의도로 이 사건 대토농지에 관한 소유 명의만 원고 앞으로 이전하였다가 다시 반환한 것이 아닌가 하는 의심이 든다.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff is deemed to have failed to meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax under the substitute farmland, and on this premise, the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax on the transfer of previous farmland is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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