As it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the instant land was cultivated directly, it does not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax.

In the vicinity of the instant land, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the instant land was cultivated directly by the labor force by residing in the vicinity of the instant land at all times in the cultivation of crops or by cultivating not less than a half of farming work with the labor force. Therefore, it does not meet the requirements for reduction or

2015Gudan15412 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

SAA

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

September 28, 2016

November 30, 2016

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 imposition of capital gains tax belonging to the year 2014 against the Plaintiff on January 16, 2015 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 31, 1976, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land on the ○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) located in the Daegu-gu District, and transferred it on January 17, 2014.

B. The Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant land is subject to the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Law No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015)

The transfer of one's own farmland before amendment, hereinafter the same shall apply) for not less than eight years as provided in Article 69.

The transfer income tax has not been reported by deeming it as falling under the reduction and exemption of income tax.

C. On January 16, 2015, the Defendant: (a) the income accrued from the transfer of the instant land; (b) the transfer income tax;

Considering that it did not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption, ○○○○○○○○ (including general non-reported penalty tax, ○○○○○○, and penalty tax for unfaithful payment) (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) was imposed on the Plaintiff in 2014.

D. The Plaintiff had completed the pre-trial procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 6, 21 evidence, Eul 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff actually resided in the vicinity of the land of this case from 1976 to 2002 and the above period.

Until now, the transfer of the instant land was directly cultivated by the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

The disposition of this case on a different premise, despite the fact that the disposition of this case constitutes the transfer of self-owned farmland

law.

B. Determination

1) The main sentence of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is “the Presidential Decree where the farmland is located.”

Of land directly cultivated by a resident for at least eight years, as prescribed by Presidential Decree;

Income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be subject to capital gains tax.

The tax amount equivalent to 100/100 shall be reduced or exempted, and the enforcement of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

Article 66(13) of the Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter the same) provides that “Direct cultivation” means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland at all times or in cultivating or cultivating at least 1/2 of the crops or perennial plants with his/her own labor,” and in light of the content and purport of the provision, it is reasonable to view that the meaning of “self’s labor force” in this context is interpreted as a literal sense to mean that a resident satisfies one half or more of his/her own labor force in cases where he/she is in charge of directly or by hand (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 201).

Furthermore, a company that directly cultivated the transferred land for at least eight years while living in the above farmland location;

The burden of proof for the room shall be borne by the taxpayer who asserts the exemption of the transfer income tax in accordance with the provision.

[Defendant-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant]

2) The above legal principles are as follows: Gap 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 20 evidence, and 3 through 3

5, 8, 14 through 17, each description of the evidence (including paper numbers) and any part of the witness BB's testimony

Further to the purport of the body, evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in light of the following circumstances:

Only by itself, the Plaintiff resided in the vicinity of the instant land and cultivated crops on the instant land.

by cultivating not less than 1/2 of the farming work on a regular basis or with its own labor;

It is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the land was cultivated directly, and evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

shall not be effective.

① On May 20, 1974, the Plaintiff transferred Seodaemun-gu, Seoul to ○-○○, Nam-dong, Seoul, on March 4, 1996.

ter except until March 13, 1996, the State of the Plaintiff was continuously registered as a resident in Seoul.

According to the head of the headquarters, after the Plaintiff’s father returned, transferred the Plaintiff’s wife’s address to high level, and the Plaintiff reserved and resided in the Plaintiff’s domicile as a self-education relationship, and the Plaintiff, even before the father returned to the Plaintiff, was cultivated with his father and the headCC several weeks in the vicinity of the instant land on several occasions a week, and the Plaintiff’s child’s birth date on △△△, 1961, 1963, △△, △, 163, △△, △△, 1965, △△, △△, 196, △△, 1970, and △△△ on several occasions a week, while residing in Seoul, cannot be deemed to have resided in the neighboring land of this case. In view of the fact that at least, the Plaintiff’s child did not reach the age of majority around 190, he cannot be deemed to have resided in the instant neighboring land.

② The Plaintiff does not submit objective materials to recognize that it was engaged in the cultivation of crops in the instant land at all times or at least 1/2 of the farming work.

③ The Plaintiff asserted in the Plaintiff’s complaint that the Plaintiff’s wife had been engaged in joint farming with the Plaintiff’s farmer. In the tax prior domicile trial, the Plaintiff’s wife owned farmland ○○○○○○○, with the Plaintiff’s farmland for long time and owned a farming house with the Plaintiff, and the entire community residents were cultivated in cooperation with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and the headCC presented a written confirmation of the farming fact (No. 9, No. 5) as of September 22, 2014 that the Plaintiff’s wife joined the Plaintiff, who is the husband, in the course of farming work by employing the regularly-known father as the husband’s marital relationship, and that the Plaintiff was engaged in farming with the Plaintiff’s father after entering the farming and succeeding to the Plaintiff’s house, and 41-41, a director of the farming household by taking over the Plaintiff’s house after his father’s death.

A. The plaintiff submitted a letter of good faith (Evidence No. 10, No. 4) to the effect that he/she jointly engaged in farming with the plaintiff, and the witness SA submitted a letter of good faith (Evidence No. 10, No. 4) to the effect that he/she jointly engaged in agricultural business

A statement was made to the effect that there are many arguments and arguments. The above arguments and the above statements were made.

According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff employed the father with the wife or operated the machinery with the help of the villager.

In addition, the plaintiff is engaging in the cultivation of crops or the plaintiff's work for farming.

It is not recognized that he/she has taken charge of not less than 1/2 of himself/herself, directly or by hand.

④ The Plaintiff asserted that the farmland was farmland as well as the instant land owned by the headCC. In light of the fact that the headCC owned a total area of 00 square meters of 00 square meters of ○○○○, other than Daegu-gun-gun, and among them, excluded the Daegu-gun-gun, ○○○-○ from the area of 00 square meters, the area is below the 000 square meters of 1989. From June 27, 1989 to July 1, 1995, it is difficult to view that the headCC actually owned the instant land, as well as the head of the instant farmland, from July 12, 1989 to July 1, 199, and from February 19 to January 8, 2001.

⑤ Although the Plaintiff asserted to have subscribed to the Agricultural Cooperative Livestock Industry Co., Ltd.’s agricultural safety mutual aid, according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 20, the period of mutual aid was after March 23, 2002 to March 22, 2003.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Aaaaaaa