8 Whether the farmland falls under the category of self-farmland

The term "self-defense" includes not only the case in which the transferor cultivates water by hand but also the case in which another person is employed and cultivated by him/her under his/her responsibility and account, but also the case in which the transferor who asserts is actively proved, and the fact that the transferred land has been used as farmland is recognized, which is not presumed to have been presumed to have been the fact by the transferor.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act: (1) and (3) of the reduction or exemption of transfer income tax for self-farmland

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 100,000,000 against the Plaintiff on January 3, 2005 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 20, 2004, the Plaintiff asserted that ○○○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○-1, 106-1 (hereinafter “instant land”) had been self-ed for not less than eight years by filing a preliminary return of capital gains tax after having transferred the instant land to ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○

B. On January 3, 2005, the Defendant refused to apply for reduction or exemption, calculated capital gains tax of KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any objective data to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s self-sufficiency for not less than eight years, and that part of the instant land was used as a parking lot at the time of transfer, etc., and imposed capital gains tax of KRW 100,

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence, Eul evidence 2-1 and Eul evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From December 8, 1993, the Plaintiff resided in the location of the instant land, and for more than eight years, and transferred the instant land to ○○ on January 16, 2005.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The term "self-cultivation", which is a requirement for reduction or exemption under Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, includes not only the case where the transferor cultivates a hand-owned tree but also the case where he/she cultivates another person under his/her responsibility and account, but also the case where he/she is employed by another person. However, this fact must be proved by the transferor who asserts actively, and the fact that the transferred land has been used as farmland has

According to the statements and images of Gap evidence 4-6 through 9, the witness ○○○○’s testimony (except for the portion that is not believed later), even though some of the land of this case was scamed by the plaintiff, considering whether the plaintiff cultivated it under his own account and responsibility, it is difficult to believe that the entries of Gap evidence 4-1 through 3, Gap evidence 5-2, and Eul evidence 1-15, and some of the witness evidence of ○○○○○○○○’s testimony are not sufficient to recognize them in light of evidence Nos. 8 through 10, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

October 11, 2006

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Article 69(1) and (3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Article 66 (1) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18704 of Feb. 19, 2005).