Cheongju District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-1075 ( April 13, 2017)

Whether reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on substitute land for farmland is appropriate;

(See the judgment of the court of first instance) The question is whether the work performed by the plaintiff with his own labor is more than 1/2 of the farming work, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2017Nu2951 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

00

00. Head of tax office

Cheongju District Court 2016Guhap1075 ( April 13, 2017)

July 19, 2017

August 30, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The capital gains tax of KRW 143,860,000,000 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on April 1, 2016.

The imposition disposition shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on the instant case is in accordance with section 15 to 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the phrase “A. I.A. must be seen as . I.D.” is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

It cannot be deemed that the meaning of “her own labor force” includes the case in which another person is employed on his/her own responsibility and calculation, and the meaning thereof is interpreted as grammaticly and thereby satisfying the requirements for self-reliance only when one-half or more of the agricultural works must be in charge of himself/herself or hand over (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010). Furthermore, the burden of proof for this is a taxpayer who asserts reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on substitute land, namely, the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1893, Jul. 13, 1993).

On the other hand, the legislative intent of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which provides for capital gains tax reduction or exemption for self-Cultivating farmland, is to reduce tax burdens so that a person engaged in agriculture can engage in long-term agriculture by preventing speculation on non-permanent farmland and guaranteeing that a person engaged in agriculture can freely substitute farmland.

It is intended to protect farmers and promote agriculture and rural communities. Accordingly, farmland owners are trying to protect farmers and promote agricultural and rural communities.

primarily engaged in the other occupation in a state of employment other than agriculture, and primarily engaged in the other occupation;

Cases where farmland is cultivated intermittently by cultivating human labor, etc.

" shall be deemed excluded from capital gains tax reduction or exemption."

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.