An indirect management of agriculture by transferring to another occupation can not be considered as a farming child.

근무회사와 이 사건 각 토지와의 거리, 발생한 근로소득 등에 비추어 볼 때, 원고의 주장과 같이 원고가 위 기간 동안에도 틈틈이 이 사건 각 토지를 경작했다고 하더라도 이는 위 각 회사의의 직원으로서의 업무에 전념하면서 농업을 간접적으로 경영하는 것에 불과하다고 판단됨

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing gift tax amounting to KRW 24,570,670 on July 10, 2007 is revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was donated from the double ○○○○-do, ○○○-do, ○○○○-do, which was put up on November 17, 2006, 132-1, 935 square meters and 132-2 1,575 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”).

B. On January 9, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for tax reduction or exemption with the Defendant pursuant to Article 58(1)1(a) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 5584, Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter referred to as the "former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act"), Article 57(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15976, Dec. 31, 1998; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act"), Article 15(2) of the Addenda of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 5825, Feb. 8, 199; hereinafter referred to as the "Special Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act").

C. On July 10, 2007, the Defendant rendered a disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 24,570,670 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that each of the instant lands is not subject to the said respective provisions.

D. On January 28, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 28, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 9, Eul evidence No. 1

2. The assertion and judgment

(a)the master of the plaintiff;

Each of the instant lands is farmland subject to exemption from gift tax as prescribed by the former Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act, the Enforcement Decree of the former Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act, and the Addenda of the Act on Special Cases concerning Taxation. Nevertheless, the Defendant was unlawful against the Plaintiff.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 57 (Exemption of Gift Tax on Farmland, etc. Donated to Farming Children)

Article 1 (Enforcement Date of Restriction of Special Taxation Act)

C. Determination

Article 15 (2) of the Addenda to the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the farmland, etc. which is subject to exemption from the gift tax pursuant to the provisions of Article 58 (1) of the previous Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act at the time of the enforcement of this Act shall be exempted from the gift tax pursuant to the provisions of Article 58 (2) through (5) of the previous Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, and Article 58 of the previous Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act provides that the farmland, etc. which is subject to exemption from the gift tax pursuant to the provisions of Article 58 (1) of the previous Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act shall be donated to the farming children of the farmer, who is the self-employed farmer under the proviso of paragraph (1) of the same Article, shall be exempted from the gift tax pursuant to the provisions of Article 58 (2) through (5) of the previous Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act.

In light of the principle of no taxation without law, or the requirements for tax exemption or tax exemption, and the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring any special circumstance, and it shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without any reasonable reason, and in particular, it is also consistent with the principle of fair taxation to strictly interpret the provisions that can be clearly viewed as preferential provisions among the requirements for tax exemption and exemption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20090, Mar. 27, 1998). In light of the above, Article 15(2) of the Addenda of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that a self-employed farmer shall meet all the requirements prescribed by the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Common Act at the time of January 1, 199, when the self-employed farmer satisfies all the requirements prescribed by the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and thus, it shall be interpreted that the land subject to exemption of gift tax is a provision that is exempt from gift tax under the above Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

그런데 을 제2호증(가지번호가 있는 경우 각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재, 변론 전체 의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 1997. 1. 1.부터 1997. 12. 31.까지는 ○○기계공업 주식회사에서 16,665,000원의 근로소득이, 1998. 9. 1.부터 1998. 12. 1.까지는 주식회사 ○○ 세라믹에서 3,710,000원의 근로소득이, 1998. 1. 1.부터 1998. 12. 1.까지는 ○○기계공 업 주식회사에서 2,013,000원의 근로소득이 각 발생하였던 사실, 원고가 근무하였던 주식회사 ○○세라믹은 김포시에 소재하고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 구 조세감면규제법이 정하는 영농자녀라 함은 농지 등을 타인에게 위탁하거나 대여하지 않고 직접 자기의 책임하에 관리 ・ 경작하는 자를 의미하고, 직접 영농에 종사하는 이상 다른 직 업을 겸업하더라도 여기에서 말하는 영농자녀에 해당할 것이지만, 다른 직업에 전념하면서 농업을 간접적으로 경영하는 것에 불과한 경우에는 영농자녀에 해당한다고 볼 수 없는바(대법원 1998. 9. 22. 선고 98두9271 판결 참조), 위 인정사실에 의하면 원고는 1997. 1. 1.부터 1998. 12. 1.까지의 기간에는 ○○기계공업 주식회사 내지 주식회사 ○○세라믹에서 근로소득을 얻고 있었는데, 위 ○○세라믹 주식회사와 이 사건 각 토지와의 거리, 발생한 근로소득 등에 비추어 볼 때, 원고의 주장과 같이 원고가 위 기간 동안에도 틈틈이 이 사건 각 토지를 경작했다고 하더라도 이는 위 각 회사의의 직원으로서의 업무에 전념하면서 농업을 간접적으로 경영하는 것에 불과하다고 판단되므로, 1999. 1. 1.을 기준으로 소급하여 2년 이상 계속하여 직접 영농에 종사하고 있지 않았다고 봄이 타당하다.

Therefore, as of January 1, 199, the plaintiff did not meet the requirements of farming children under the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act as of January 1, 1999, the land of this case does not fall under the farmland subject to gift tax exemption stipulated under the above-mentioned provision.

3. Conclusion

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