National High Court Decision 2007west3181 ( November 28, 2007)

Whether it constitutes farmland cultivated directly for at least eight years;

The evidence documents and videos submitted by the plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case for not less than eight years, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

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

Article 69 (Capital Gains Tax Reduction or Exemption for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 66 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 57,166,480 on the Plaintiff on May 18, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 28, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 784m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) in ○○○○-dong, Seoul, 21 ○○-dong, 21,500, and was admitted to KRW 367,696,000 on May 10, 2006. On July 31, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for tax reduction or exemption pursuant to Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9276, Dec. 29, 2008; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) on the premise that the Plaintiff was self-employed for at least eight years upon filing a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax for 2006 upon the transfer of the instant land.

C. As to this, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to correct and notify the Plaintiff of KRW 57,166,480 on May 18, 2007, on the ground that the instant land cannot be deemed as farmland of which the Plaintiff was self-sufficient for not less than eight years, and thus does not fall under the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including ad hoc number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On June 28, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired four plastic greenhouses on the ground along with the instant land, and on May 10, 2006, developed the instant land by cultivating pigs, etc. from the instant land for a period of not less than eight years until the instant land is expropriated to ○○○○○○○ Corporation. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition otherwise reported is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 69 (Capital Gains Tax Reduction or Exemption for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 66 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

C. Determination

The respective descriptions and images of Gap 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 6, and 7 (including virtual numbers) are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case for not less than eight years, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax on the plaintiff on the ground that the land of this case does not constitute farmland directly cultivated for not less than eight years is lawful.

Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed for reasons.