Suwon District Court 2013Gudan1298 ( October 28, 2013)

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for not less than 8 years.

It is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff is engaged in the cultivation of crops on the land of this case for not less than 8 years or not less than 1/2 of the farming work required for the cultivation of crops with his own labor.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2013Nu26912 Revocation of disposition of revocation of capital gains tax imposition

IsaA

Head of Suwon Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gudan1298 Decided August 28, 2013

May 27, 2014

June 10, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2010 against the plaintiff on August 12, 2011.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing this in accordance with the main text of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the land of this case was directly cultivated by the plaintiff for not less than eight years, the defendant issued the disposition of this case on a different premise. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case against the plaintiff is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) Article 66(13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22953, Jun. 3, 2011) clearly provides that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants in his/her own farmland or growing or growing them with his/her own labor not less than 1/2 of the crops or growing or growing them with his/her own labor. In light of the fact that a full-time employee and the meaning of his/her own labor should be interpreted in accordance with the language and text, a direct cultivation of farmland eligible for reduction of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22953, Dec. 27, 2010) shall be deemed to have been directly cultivated without a labor ratio. However, with respect to a person engaged in agriculture on the grounds that he/she is not regularly engaged in agriculture, it shall be deemed that he/she directly cultivated at least 21/10 of his/her own labor ratio, excluding his/her family members (see Supreme Court Decision 20020Du131, 297.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, even if the Plaintiff’s 2-G 1/2 or more of the instant land used for farming purposes, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff, as its husband’s 2-1/10 or more of the instant land, had been directly 5/100 or more of the instant land for 1/6G 2-1/10 or more of the instant land for 4G 1/6G 200, the Plaintiff’s 2-1/10 or more of the instant land for 1/6G 4G 1/200, and the Plaintiff’s 2-1/2 or more of the instant land for 1/6G 4G 200 or more of the instant land for 1/6G 4G 1/200 or more of the instant land for 5G 1/6G 200 or more of the instant land for 1/6G 1/200 or more of the instant land for farming purposes and 9/1/6G 1/2000 of the instant land.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.