beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 11, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the land B 1,025 square meters in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, which was acquired on May 17, 2004 (hereinafter “instant land”), to the expropriation procedure, and filed an application for reduction of capital gains tax on August 13, 2009 by filing a report on capital gains tax on the said land on August 13, 2009, and thereafter, on April 15, 2010, acquired the land C 2,787 square meters in Seosung-si, Seosung-si.
B. On December 9, 2014, the Defendant denied the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the instant land, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate after the acquisition of the instant substitute farmland after conducting an on-site investigation on the said substitute farmland, and rendered a decision and notification on KRW 74,092,302 (including additional tax) for the transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff in 2009.
C. The Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on September 11, 2015.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 26, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion was registered as a farmer in the farmland ledger on May 25, 2004. Since 2006, neighboring residents of agricultural cooperatives received rice-converted subsidies each year, and confirmed that they were cultivated by the plaintiff. It is confirmed that the plaintiff cultivated the farmland of this case in light of the sales revenue by each trader, the certificate of use fee for agricultural machinery, the certificate of Doing, and the certificate of purchase of rice, etc., most farmers currently use the farmland of this case by mobilization of the company holding the agricultural machinery and can only operate the farming and use the agricultural machinery. However, the act of taking charge of works by the agricultural machinery itself constitutes the act of cultivating the farmland of this case by self-labor power. In light of the above, it cannot be readily concluded that the plaintiff did not self-refilled the farmland of this case merely because the plaintiff simply obtained other income.