Suwon District Court 2010Guhap16593, 2011.20

early 2010 Heavy2077 (Law No. 1031, 2010)

It is difficult to recognize as being a serious one for not less than eight years.

Considering the fact that the representative director of a company or the management and cultivation of farmland located at each different location while engaging in other occupation, such as the management of the market, etc., is unable to provide an explanation to understand how to manage and cultivate the farmland in each different location, and the submission of data on purchase of fertilizers, agricultural materials, etc. is not possible, it is difficult to recognize that it is engaged in agriculture on a regular basis

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2011Nu29689 Revocation of disposition to impose capital gains tax

XX

Head of Suwon Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap16593 Decided July 20, 201

March 8, 2012

March 22, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 79,050,160 on December 1, 2009 against the plaintiff on December 1, 2009.

1. The reasons for the decision of the court of first instance are reasonable, and they are cited for this decision in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (However, the "Pteur Commission" of No. 18 of the decision of the court of first instance seems to be a clerical error of the "Pteur Commission".

2. The plaintiff asserts in the appellate court that since the plaintiff acquired the land of this case on October 11, 1994 and cultivated rice directly from 1995 to 2005 in the land of this case, since he cultivated bean directly from the land of this case since 2006, reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-Cultivating land of this case should be allowed for more than eight years under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

3. However, the main text of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which was in force at the time of the instant disposition, provides that the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for the income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by the Presidential Decree, among land which is subject to agricultural income tax, which is cultivated by the residents prescribed by the Presidential Decree who reside in the location of the land for not less than eight years. As such, the burden of proving that the land transferred while residing in the location of the land has been directly cultivated for not less than eight years under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree lies in the taxpayer who asserts exemption from capital gains tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu96, Oct. 21, 1994; 2002Du7074, Nov. 22, 2002). In addition, in order to prevent speculation of non-owned farmland and to realize the concept of direct cultivation of farmland by 20 or more farmers (see, 201).

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the facts cited earlier, i.e., ① the Plaintiff became a representative director from around 1994, around 194, when becoming a 199, and worked as the representative director from around 199. From around 198 to 2005, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff had continuously cultivated rice during the period when she cultivated rice in the instant land or was taking the main means of living as a rice farmer. ② According to the farmland ledger submitted by the Plaintiff as of October 6, 2008, the Plaintiff did not directly submit 3 lots including the instant land, and 1 piece of farmland from around 190 to 200 if he had been working as a 5th anniversary of the acquisition of the instant land. However, considering the fact that the Plaintiff had no other evidence to support the Plaintiff’s purchase of farmland from 190 to 200 piece of farmland, and that the Plaintiff had no other material necessary for the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant land from 190 to 308th of the instant land.

4. If so, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.