early 2014 Heavy1317 ( August 21, 2014)

8 Whether reduction or exemption has been made for older persons

difficulties in direct self-reliance on farmland while operating the project;

2015Gudan30368 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

July 22, 2015

August 26, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 73,125,090 for the Plaintiff on October 7, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 18, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired 70,959 square meters of ○○○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○○-gun (hereinafter “instant land”). Thereafter, the Plaintiff acquired 61,587 square meters of ○○-gun, ○○-gun, ○○-gun, ○○-gun, ○○-gun, ○○○-gun, ○○-gun, ○○-gun, ○○-gun, ○○○-gun, ○○-gun, ○○-6, 1758 square meters of ri on September 28, 2010.

B. After transferring the instant land on September 13, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on farmland substitute land under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act by filing a preliminary return of capital gains tax.

C. Around July 2013 as a result of the investigation conducted by the Defendant on the Plaintiff, the Defendant determined that the provision on reduction or exemption of farmland substitute land transfer income tax does not apply to the Plaintiff. On October 7, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 73,125,090 for the transfer income tax for the year 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition]

Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 4 respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the land category of this case was cultivated and cultivated directly from forest land or from the land of this case by the Plaintiff, the land of this case constitutes the subject of reduction and exemption from farmland substitute land, the disposition of this case denying it is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 70 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010) provides that a tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for any income accruing from the substitution of farmland falling under cases prescribed by Presidential Decree as farmland due to the necessity for farming. Article 67 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012) provides that a resident is constantly engaged in the cultivation of crops or perennial plants in his/her own farmland or cultivating or growing them with his/her own labor, and Article 70 (3) 2 of the same Act provides that a person transfers farmland, the area of which is at least two years and the new farmland area of which is acquired, to a new farmland area of which is at least three years and the new farmland area of which is to be acquired for at least three years, for at least three years, is located in the new farmland area of farmland.

However, direct cultivation under the above provision refers to the cultivation or cultivation of at least 1/2 of farming work with his/her own labor. The meaning of "one-half or more self labor force" should be interpreted as a grammatic interpretation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010; 2012Du19700, Dec. 27, 2012).

2) Therefore, in full view of the following circumstances, as to whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for not less than three years, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have partly engaged in the farming of the instant land, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have appropriated not less than half of the necessary farming work with its own labor, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful, which did not apply the reduction and exemption provisions of the transfer income tax on large farmland under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act to the Plaintiff.

○ The farmland ledger that the Plaintiff submitted to the Tax Tribunal, a prior trial, by asserting that the land was self-defluence, was not included therein.

○ The Plaintiff operated ○○ (Operation of Health and Food Retail Business for about two months from April 30, 2007 to June 22, 2007) and ○○ (Operation of Health and Food Retail Business for about six months from May 10, 2010 to November 21, 2010) during the period from May 18, 2007 to September 12, 2010, which is the possession period of the instant land. Since it appears that the Plaintiff was difficult for the Plaintiff to directly cultivate the instant land while operating such business, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for at least three years.

Even based on the data submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is recognized as having employed human fathers in the instant land or cultivated brain ginseng by separately employing mountainous district management entities.

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.