2011u343

It is difficult to see that the claimant has satisfed the land in question for more than eight years.

When comprehensively considering the fact that the claimant has continuously been employed as a full-time employee, that there has been a considerable wage and salary income, that was first made in April 05 after five years from the date of acquisition of the farmland ledger, that the land category of the key land has been changed from forest to forest to that of moving to Seoul, and that the period from the time when the claimant changed to that of moving to Seoul is less than eight years, it is difficult to deem that the claimant has re

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Gudan20574 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

August 28, 2013

September 25, 2013

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 OOOO on August 1, 201 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 19, 199 (the remaining payment date under the sales contract is November 30, 1998) BB (the seller under the sales contract is referred to as "CCC") acquired 306/126 shares (the above co-ownership shares were changed in the registration conversion and land division, November 7, 2001, and August 13, 2001, the land category was changed to 20-16 m2,646 m2, and the land was changed to 306m2,646m2, and the land was transferred to the Plaintiff for 12,627 m2,000 OO-gun, and the Plaintiff made a disposition of transfer income tax reduction or exemption for 201,000 m2,000 m2,000,0000,0000 m20,0000 m2,000).

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap 1 through 2-2, 15-1 through 15-3, 37, and 38

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was directly cultivating seedlings and collecting seedlings on the instant land for at least eight years from around March 1999 to March 2010, and the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

○ From February 3, 1999, the Plaintiff served as an industrial assistant at the JJ University, and July 2009.

13. It has been working as an industrial officer in U.U.S. facilities from around 13.

Since the relocation of the Plaintiff into the OOdong in December 29, 1993, the Plaintiff continued to have his domicile in the same Gu, and moved into the OOdong in April 2, 2010.

“○○ The Plaintiff was issued with the farmland ledger on April 11, 2005, and the location of the farmland shall be 2,596.40m for the OOO-gun 20-8, and 2,596.40m for the area.

The agricultural products in the presence are classified into ornamental trees and cultivation categories, respectively, and the confirmation submitted to the ○○ Court shall contain the following statements:

▫ BBB : 1998. 10. 30. RRRR 묘목장으로 사용하던 토지를 경락받아 1999. 1. 19. 원고에게 매도함 매도 당시 조경용 묘목이 식재되어 있었고， 2009. 8 공유지분을 분할할 때까지 조경수를 포함한 밭작물을 원고가 직접 경작하였음.

▫ FFF，GGG : 2000. 3.경 홍단풍 10주 구입 .

▫ HHH : 2001. 5. 10.경 원고로부터 청단풍 40주， 백목련 30주 구입

▫ III : 2002. 3.경 원고에게 3년생 소나무 100주와 2년생 왕벚나무 100주

Sales.

▫ KKK : 2008. 4.경 원고로부터 소나무 10주 구입.

▫ KKK : 2009. 3.경 원고로부터 왕벚나무 20주 구입.

▫ LLL 2010. 3. 20.경 원고로부터 왕벚나무 20주를 구입.

▫ DDD : 2010. 이 사건 토지 취득 당시 4-5년생 소나무 약 100주， 10년생 B급 소나무 약 20주， 10년생 B급 왕벚나무 약 10주가 남아 있었음.

▫ MMM， NNN 1999. 3.부터 2010. 3.까지 주말에 상기 농지에서 묘목과 채소 농사를 지으면서 씨앗파종과 묘목을 식재할 때와 삽， 호미 등 농기구가 작업 중 망가진 일로 필요할 때， (원고가) MMM과 NNN 댁에서 지하수를 얻어 쓰거나 농기구를 빌려 쓰면서 실제로 농사를 지었음을 확임함.

▫PPP(SSSSSSS)， QQQ(TTTTTTT) : 1999. 3 경부터 2009. 3.경 까지 직접 자경하면서， 매년 농약， 씨앗， 비닐덮개， 비료 등의 농자재를 구매하였음.

On September 8, 2007, the Plaintiff was in the emergency room for V University Hospital due to symptoms that seem to have been dead while working in dry field.

[Based on Recognition] The purpose of Gap 2, 3, 4, 9 through 10-2, 14 through 20, 26, 27, 29, and 43-1, witness KK, and the entire argument

D. Determination

The legislative purpose of Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010) is to reduce the tax burden due to the transfer of farmland as part of the land farming policy, and to revitalize agriculture and rural communities by reducing the tax burden of self-employed farmers for at least eight years (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2003Hun-Ba2, Nov. 27, 2003). In full view of the following circumstances in addition to the legislative purpose, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff was self-employed for at least eight years only the evidence submitted to this court.

"The plaintiff is a person who is in office as a teacher and staff, and has cultivated trees and cultivated vegetables on the land up to 2,646 m2,00 square meters at the weekends and holidays, and it is difficult to recognize the fact that a real self-defense has been made for not less than eight years in this form only with a statement from the neighbors." "It is difficult to recognize the fact that ○○ is actually self-defensed for not less than eight years", "the purchase and sale of trees, and the purchase of agricultural chemicals, fertilizers, farming equipment, farming materials, etc., other than tax invoices, receipts, and reports on income tax and

○ Even if the contents of each written confirmation show the above facts, (i) the number of trees planted on the instant land are presumed to have been 80 to 200 weeks, and in light of the area of the instant land being 2,646 square meters, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff had cultivated and cultivated the instant land in the whole or in a substantial part of the instant land, and (ii) it is difficult to recognize that the number of trees sold from around 199 to around 2010 was 130 weeks in total, and that 80 Bama was already planted before the Plaintiff’s land acquisition, and in particular, around 2002, the remaining 120 weeks were disposed of except for the 80 share in planting trees and king spypypine trees sold or remaining until the time of land transfer, and so it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff had continuously cultivated and cultivated the instant trees in the entire or considerable part of the instant land, and it is difficult to say that it had been done through the management of the instant land.

The plaintiff acquired a farmland ledger in around 2005, and there seems to be no fact that the plaintiff joined an agricultural cooperative or a farming cooperative or prepared a farmland ledger.

Ultimately, the instant disposition taken on the foregoing premise is lawful.

3.In conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.