Cho High Court Decision 201J 0142 ( October 24, 2011)

Land which is not actually cultivated as of the date of transfer shall not be regarded as a self-arable farmland.

Even if the night tree is planted in part of the land, it is difficult to view that it was actually cultivated because it did not perform an act such as growing the night tree every year, and in light of the fact that there was a miscellaneous tree outside the night tree and a miscellaneous tree, etc., and was engaged in another business, it is difficult to view it as temporary suspension of land which is not actually cultivated as of the date of transfer as being temporarily closed.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2011Guhap5255 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Won XX

Head of Seogsan Tax Office

January 19, 2012

February 16, 2012

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 207,114,50 to the Plaintiff on October 5, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 10, 1982, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 3,872 square meters at the beginning of Singu, 190-0,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,000,000).

C. On December 27, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on August 24, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-1, Gap evidence 4-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant land is classified into “the field of land” and is classified as “the field of land.” Some of 1,206 square meters were planted on the land owned by neighboring Plaintiff while growing dry field crops, such as Goguma and bean. The instant land was also in a temporary state of temporary closure. The instant land was farmland at the time of transfer and was not used for some agricultural landscape.

2) From January 5, 1986 to December 31, 2004, the Plaintiff purchased and sold agricultural products calculated by establishing a ppuri farm at the location of the instant land, and thus, it shall be deemed that it was self-sufficient for eight years.

3) Therefore, the instant land is farmland or temporary closure at the time of transfer, and the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case by the Defendant on the ground that the instant land does not meet the above requirement even though the reduction and exemption provision should be applied, as long as it was done for more than eight years from the instant land.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The principle of strict interpretation derived from the principle of no taxation without law is applicable not only to the cases meeting the taxation requirements, but also to the cases meeting the requirements for non-taxation and tax reduction and exemption. As such, extended interpretation or analogical interpretation of the requirements for non-taxation or tax exemption and exemption as favorable to taxpayers without any justifiable reason leads to a result contrary to the principle of no taxation, which is the basic ideology of the tax law, and thus, it shall not be allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19163, May 25, 2006). The assertion of farmland is liable to prove the fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1893, Jul. 13,

In addition, the land which is not actually cultivated as of the date of transfer cannot be deemed as farmland as of the date of transfer, regardless of whether it is by the landowner’s own person or by another person, and it cannot be deemed as farmland as of the date of transfer, and it does not constitute land subject to non-taxation of capital gains tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du5003, Jun. 23, 2005; 91Nu7422, Nov. 12, 1991).

3) We examine the instant case back to the instant case in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine.

A) According to Article 69(1) of the Act and Article 66(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21835, Nov. 20, 2009), it is apparent that the land should be “farmland as of the date of transfer” to be reduced or exempted from capital gains tax on self-arable farmland (in this regard, no dispute exists between the parties), and land not actually cultivated as of the date of transfer shall not be deemed farmland as of the date of transfer, unless it is temporarily in a state of temporary closure, and thus, it does not constitute land subject to non-taxation of capital gains tax. Therefore, whether the instant land was actually cultivated at the time of transfer or not is considered first.

B) According to the images of evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the fact that night trees, etc. were planted in part of the instant land can be acknowledged. However, the fact of recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the instant land was actually cultivated as of November 12, 2009, when the said land was transferred or was temporarily closed. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

오히려, 위 각 증거와, 갑 3, 4호증, 을 3, 4, 9, 11호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재, 을 6, 7, 9호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 영상, 증인 이BB, 윤AA, 이CC, 옥DD의 일부 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 인정되는 사정 즉, ① 원고는 1986. 1. 5.경 뿌리농장을 개업하였다가 2004. 12. 31. 폐업하였는데 위 농장운영 당시 이 사건 토지에 콩나물, 수박 등을 재배하고, 일부 밤나무도 식재하였으나, 2007. 11. 5. 원고는 거제시 연초면 OO리 000-0로 주민등록을 이전하였고, 이 사건 토지의 양도 당시인 2009. 11. 12. 이 사건 토지는 실제 경작을 하지 않고 있었던 점, ② 이 사건 토지가 있는 마을에서는 과거 시세가 좋을 때는 거의 밤나무 농사를 하였으나, 현재는 대부분 방치하고 있고, 집에서 먹기 위하여 농사를 짓는 가구가 3~4가구 정도 있을 뿐인 점을 고려하면 이 사건 토지의 일부에 밤나무가 식재되어 있다 하더라도 그 밤나무밭을 매년 가꾸는 등의 행위를 하지 않고 있었던 것으로 보여 실제 경작하고 있었다고 보기는 어려운 점, ③ 원고로부터 이 사건 토지, 인근 임야 및 대지와 주택을 매수한 윤AA은 매매계약 당시 주택에는 사람이 거주한 흔적이 없고, 이 사건 토지에는 잡풀과 넝쿨이 무성하였다고 하고 있으며, 또한 직업이 공인중개사로 토지의 현황 등에 대하여 전문적으로 알고 있다고 보이는 매수인 윤AA도 이 사건 토지의 취득세 및 등록세 신고를 하면서 농지가 아닌 일반토지로 신고한 점, ④ 이 사건 토지에 대한 2008년도 항공사진, 2010. 8. 16. 이BB의 측량을 위한 현지방문, 2011. 8. 11. 조사공무원의 조사결과 등에 의하더라도 대체로 이 사건 토지는 밤나무 외에도 잡목, 잡풀 등이 있었던 점, ⑤ 원고는 1996. 3. 20. 거제시 연초면 XX리 156-9 소재에서 YY파크 여관을 개업하였다가 2007. 10. 1. 폐업하는 등 다른 사업도 하고 있었고, 이 사건 토지에 대하여 농업소득세를 신고 ・ 납부한 사실이 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 토지는 양도일 현재 실제로 경작하고 있지 않은 토지이고, 일시적으로 휴경상태에 있다고 보기도 어려워 법 제69조 제1항에 의하여 양도소득세가 감면되는 자경농지에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate under the premise that the land of this case is not farmland as of the date of transfer, and it is not subject to reduction or exemption of income tax on treasury farmland. The plaintiff's assertion contrary to this is without merit regardless of whether it has been a 8-year self-contentious fact

3. Conclusion

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