early 207 Mine4135 (208.06.20)

Whether or not land has been reclaimed for 8 years or more;

It appears that the farmland was managed indirectly or sporadicly as the owner of farmland, with the focus on his/her own occupation, considering the fact that the farmland ledger has been engaged in medical services, and that there is no farmland ledger.

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

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax on August 1, 2007 on each of the Plaintiff’s capital gains tax stated in the attached Form “the capital gains tax amount by Plaintiff” shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. KimmM transferred each land listed in the separate sheet of "Real Estate List" (hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case", and according to the sequences above, "the land of this case 0" in the following table on the corresponding date of "registration receipt date" as stated below. The land of this case was transferred at each corresponding date of "transfer date".

B. On June 30, 2002, KimM applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7003, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") on the ground that the land Nos. 1 through 4, and 7 of this case transferred to the Defendant in 2002 for more than eight years as farmland. On April 16, 2003, the Plaintiffs, the deceased’s property heir, were subject to the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the land No. 5 and 6 of this case transferred by the deceased in 203 as of October 31, 2003.

C. The Defendant accepted the deceased and the plaintiffs' above application for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax, but determined that the deceased did not own each land of this case as a result of conducting a tax investigation after receiving a tax evasion report.

D. Accordingly, on August 1, 2007, the Defendant calculated the transfer income tax for the year 2002 due to the transfer of each of the instant lands by the Deceased, as KRW 181,296,470, and the transfer income tax for the year 2003, as KRW 21,311,400, and imposed the transfer income tax on the Plaintiffs who succeeded to the deceased’s tax liability by inheritance shares (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 4, Eul evidence 6, the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the disposition related to the land No. 7 of this case

The plaintiffs sought the revocation of the disposition related to the land of this case among the dispositions of this case, and the land of this case transferred by Do and the deceased in 2002 is not subject to capital gains tax reduction and exemption. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this part is without merit.

3. Determination as to the disposition related to the land Nos. 1 through 6 of this case

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the land Nos. 1 through 6 of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "land at issue of this case") falls under the subject of exemption from capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the Act for the following reasons, the part that the Defendant imposes capital gains tax of 122,724,90 for the plaintiffs for the capital gains tax of 2002 (i.e., capital gains tax of 181,296,470 for each land at issue of this case) and 21,31,400 for the capital gains tax of 202 for the land at issue of this case for each inheritance shall be revoked as unlawful.

(1) From March 1986, around the time of leasing the land of this case to KimA, the Silver employed KimE, ED, KimA, etc. from the land of this case as a manager and cultivated the crops directly.

(2) On November 8, 1976, the Deceased purchased the instant land from the representative of a clan who was the owner at the time of the purchase, and liquidated all the purchase price by paying the balance on January 15, 1977, and only after December 29, 1978 due to the circumstances on the side of the clan, the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the Deceased. However, according to Article 162(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the date of settlement is considered to be the time of acquisition. Thus, the Deceased acquired the instant land on January 15, 197, which is the remaining payment date, and even thereafter, the deceased did so.

(3) Therefore, the Deceased, at least from January 15, 197 to March 1, 1986, did not err in the instant land for at least eight years.

B. Determination

(1) Issues

Article 69 of the Act and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18176, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter referred to as "Enforcement Decree of the Act") provides that ① a person who has resided in the seat of farmland (an area in a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located or in a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto) for at least eight years shall be exempted from capital gains tax in cases where the person who has resided in the seat of the farmland for at least eight consecutive years (2) has cultivated the farmland directly for at least eight consecutive years, and transfers the farmland to another person. However, the plaintiffs and the defendant have resided in the seat of the deceased for at least eight years, and ② there is no dispute over the fact that the land was farmland at the time of transfer, and thus the issue is whether the deceased has grown the land at issue for at least eight

(2) Whether the deceased was self-satisf

(A) Article 69(1) of the Act and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provide that the purpose of the above provision is to protect farmers by allowing and guaranteeing free substitution of farmland, thereby promoting the development and encouragement of agriculture. The self-cultivation of farmland shall include not only the case in which one himself/herself cultivates but also the case in which another person is employed and cultivated under his/her own account and responsibility, or the case in which one causes his/her family members living or living together with the same household to grow (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu7412, May 11, 1990; 87Nu706, Mar. 8, 198; 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 1994). However, if one concurrently engages in another occupation while engaging in agriculture, it constitutes a self-employed farmer, even if it is indirectly engaged in agriculture, it shall not be deemed that the person is a self-employed farmer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3698.

(B) In this case, it is difficult to believe that the statement Nos. 12-1 through 5, which seems consistent with this, is insufficient to acknowledge the above, and the testimony of Gap 2, 4, 5, and 6 and the witness highCC is not sufficient. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, it is possible to consider the following circumstances: ① on April 4, 1961, the deceased was 1, 23-2, 23-2, 23-2, 23-2, 23-2, 2, 3-2, 3-2, 2, 3-2, 3-2, 2, 3-2, 2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, and 3-3, 198, 3-2, 3-2, 19, 3-2, 19, etc., as the deceased's farmland consumption or farmland.

“(3) Whether or not the Deceased’s own land of this case for a period of eight years or more,” and (a) even if the Deceased’s own possession of the land of this case, whether or not the land of this case was self-defensed for eight years or more, which is the self-defensive period under Article 69(1) of the Act. As to this, the Plaintiffs asserted that, on January 15, 1977, the Deceased acquired the land of this case by paying the purchase price for the land of this case, which is the remainder payment date, and that, from then to March 15, 1986, the Plaintiff self-defensed the land of this case for eight years or more.

(B) According to Article 98 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9877 of Dec. 31, 2009), and Article 162 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in calculating gains from the transfer of assets, the time of acquisition shall be deemed the date of liquidation of the assets concerned, and if the date of liquidation is unclear, the date of registration shall be deemed the date of receipt recorded in the register. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the purchase price of the land in this case was liquidated on January 15, 197, and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Ultimately, the time of acquisition of the land in this case by the deceased shall be deemed to be December 29, 1978, the date of receipt of the registration of the land in this case, which is the date of receipt of the land in this case, and even if it was calculated from that, until March 3, 1986, the deceased’s lease of the land in this case to Kim A shall be less than the minimum period of 69 years.

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the deceased's "self-defluence of the land at issue of this case", and even if self-defluence is recognized, it is difficult to view that the deceased continued to self-defluence the land at issue of this case for 18 years or longer, and thus, the plaintiffs' assertion

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.