Suwon District Court 2009Guhap335 (O. 22, 2010)

Early High Court Decision 2009Du1616 (Law No. 24, 2009)

It is difficult to recognize that not less than 1/2 of the farming work was directly cultivated with his own labor;

In full view of the fact that the member of the local constituency was active as a member of the National Assembly, the business income has been paid for several years to joint business operators of the two manufacturing places, and the fact that the purchase receipt of fertilizers, etc. has been self-camped for eight years, it is insufficient to recognize that he/she was in charge of at least half of the farming work.

2010Nu24076 Transfer detailed and revocation of disposition

Jeonn

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Guhap335 Decided June 22, 2010

September 20, 2011

November 15, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 51,727,750 against the plaintiff on February 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court's decision is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as follows, except for the supplement of the first instance court's decision that does not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax.

2. Supplementary judgment

A. The former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act do not separately stipulate the concept of "direct farming", which is one of the requirements to be exempted from capital gains tax, and at that time, the Supreme Court interpreted that the meaning of "direct farming" includes not only cases where the transferor cultivates trees but also cases where he/she cultivates them by employing another person under his/her responsibility and account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du2465, May 30, 2003; 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 1994); 2006, Article 66 (12) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19329, Feb. 9, 2006; hereinafter "direct farming" refers to cases where a resident engages in the cultivation of crops or perennial plants on his/her own farmland at all times, or engages in the cultivation of at least 1/2 of the farming by his/her own labor.

B. In light of the above newly established definition provisions clearly define the meaning that one-half or more of the farming works must be cultivated with one-half or more own labor force, and the legislative intent of the newly established provision is unclear that the concept of "in the case of a farmer's death under his own responsibility," which is interpreted in the previous Supreme Court precedents, and thus, to solve the problem of reduction and exemption of capital gains tax without actually engaged in farming, the meaning of the above "self's labor force" cannot be deemed as including the case of hiring another person under his/her responsibility and calculations, such as the previous precedents, and the above newly established definition provision satisfies the self-defense requirement only where one-half or more of the farming works must be in charge of himself/herself or by hand (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sep. 30, 2010).

C. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was engaged in cultivating or cultivating the farmland in this case on a regular basis, or 1/2 or more of the farming work in the cultivation of the farmland in this case on a direct or partial basis, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and thus, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on self-taxation reduction and exemption.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.