Seoul High Court (Chuncheon) 2011Nu1011 (Law No. 16, 2012)

Early High Court Decision 201J 0251 ( October 22, 2011)

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

Since a considerable period of time has worked in a remote area with land during the retention period, and the details of purchase of agricultural materials or details of transactions of agricultural crops have not been presented in detail, it shall not be deemed that a person is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants, or has cultivated at least 1/2 of the farming works with his/her own labor for

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Du13290 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

Won XX

Head of the District Tax Office

Seoul High Court (Chuncheon) Decision 2011Nu1011 Decided May 16, 2012

October 11, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9276 of Dec. 29, 2008; hereinafter "the Restriction of Special Taxation Act") provides that "the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the transfer income tax shall be reduced or exempted for the income accruing from the transfer of the land prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the land which is subject to the taxation of agricultural income tax, which is cultivated directly by the resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the location of such land for not less than eight years," and Article 66 (12) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307 of Feb. 4, 2009) provides that "the direct cultivation" under Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act refers to the case where a resident is constantly engaged in the cultivation of agricultural products or the growing of perennial plants on his own land, or is cultivated or cultivated with his own labor not less than half of the farming work."

After comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that the land in this case is not subject to reduction of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants for at least eight years in the instant land, or has cultivated or cultivated at least 1/2 of farming works with its own labor, on the grounds that the Plaintiff worked in a university campus located at a distance away from the instant land and the instant land during the retention period, and did not specifically present the details of purchase of agricultural materials or the details of the transaction of agricultural crops.

In light of the above provisions and relevant legal principles and records, such determination by the court below is justified, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act or by exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

.