Review Transfer 2008-0072 (Law No. 8.27, 2008)

Whether direct cultivation has been made for at least eight years;

The plaintiff was a worker and business income earner within the farmland holding period, his spouse and children were residing in other areas and only the plaintiff was residing in the location of the land. However, since the plaintiff's telephone number stated in the lease contract presented as evidence is a telephone located in the location of the land where his spouse, etc. is located, it seems that he was only a resident registration and actually resided with his family

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 69 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 107,380,000 against the Plaintiff on February 12, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On April 10, 1985, the Plaintiff acquired ○○○○○○○○○, Incheon, ○○○○○○○, 4628 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and transferred the instant land to the Korea Land Corporation and the ○○○○○ Urban Development Corporation in KRW 1,422,931,000 on December 22, 2006.

B. On February 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of transfer income tax under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, while residing in the land where the case was owned by the Plaintiff, while residing in the land where the case was owned by the Plaintiff.

C. On February 12, 2008, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax of 107,380,000 won for the year 2006 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not actually reside in a farmland in light of the fact that the Plaintiff has labor and business income for the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff’s address under the resident registration was registered separately in a seat of the Plaintiff’s family, and that it does not fall under the requirements for reduction or exemption under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] The whole purport of each of the arguments described in the facts without dispute, evidence 1 and 3, and evidence 1

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

(a)the master of the plaintiff;

The Plaintiff, after April 10, 1985 or from August 17, 1991 to December 22, 2006, directly cultivated the instant land for not less than eight years while residing in the neighboring area or location of the instant land for not less than eight years, and thus, the instant disposition otherwise deemed unlawful even though it constitutes an exemption from capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 69 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

C. Determination

(1) The principle of strict interpretation derived from the principle of no taxation without law is applicable not only to cases meeting the taxation requirements, but also to cases meeting the requirements for non-taxation and tax reduction and exemption, and to expand or analogically interpret the requirements for non-taxation or tax exemption and exemption as favorable to taxpayers without any justifiable reason, which leads to a result contrary to the principle of no taxation, which is the basic ideology of the tax law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19163, May 25, 2006), and the fact of self-reliance on farmland must be proved by the claimant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1893, Jul. 13, 1993).

The evidence that the plaintiff resided in the location of the land in this case and directly cultivated the land in this case for not less than 8 years is included in Gap evidence 2, 4, 5, evidence 1, 2, and 6, evidence 1, 2, and 3, and evidence 9 through 21.

However, in light of the facts described in Eul, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and Eul 4 1 to 8, and Eul 5 l to 5 , and the facts found by the court's results of fact inquiry and the entire purport of oral argument on the head of the ○○ Metropolitan Area Customer Center, i.e., the plaintiff registered his own entrepreneur with the trade name of ○○○○○dong on September 30, 1991, and the plaintiff had worked in the ○○○ Industrial Machinery located within the Incheon ○○○○○dong Corporation around 1993, and the plaintiff had worked in the ○○○○○○○ Industries Corporation located within the Incheon ○○dong ○○○○○○dong, Incheon 194, and the plaintiff had worked in the ○○○○○ Industries Corporation located within the 1995 to 2003, and there was no evidence to recognize that the plaintiff had worked in the ○○○○○○○○ Construction Corporation established with its own labor force until May 13, etc.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.