Whether requirements for reduction of and exemption from farming children are met

Since the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to constitute a farmer who has been directly engaged in farming for more than two years retroactively from the date of donation of this case, the disposition of this case is lawful on the premise that the Plaintiff does not constitute a farmer.

Article 58 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act shall exempt farming children from gift tax on farmland, etc. donated.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 870,938,920 against the Plaintiff on August 18, 2005 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff donated ten pieces of farmland (hereinafter referred to as “the farmland in this case”) from the largest ○○, as shown in the attached Table, as stated in the attached Table, to the Defendant on October 04, 2004. On the ground that the Plaintiff’s farming child under Article 15(2) of the Addenda of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and Article 58(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, the Plaintiff exempted the Plaintiff from the gift tax on the grounds that the farmland in this case constitutes the farmland donated to the Plaintiff, who is a farming child, from the above largest ○, a self-employed farmer.

B. However, with respect to the plaintiff on August 18, 2005, the requirements for exemption from gift tax under Article 58 (1) of the Act and Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act must be met not only at the time of January 1, 1999, which was the enforcement date pursuant to Article 15 (2) of the Addenda of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, but also at the later time until the donation date of this case. The land of this case 1, 2 farmland of this case, which is composed of cement spepea factory in the form of vinyl, is not subject to exemption from gift tax, and the land of this case 1, 2 farmland of this case is not subject to exemption from gift tax, 2, 000 or the plaintiff from January 1, 199 to the date of donation of this case, 2, 3,600, 7, 1000 to △△△△△△△△△△, 5,000, and 7,000 farmland of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Of the instant farmland, △△△-dong 154-9, 155 land adjacent to the instant farmland, and about 30 square meters of the instant farmland among the instant farmland, cement waterway is opened. Of the instant farmland, the remainder, excluding approximately 30 square meters, is not classified as cement waterway, and the remainder, excluding bean estate for bean, among the instant farmland 2, is used as farmland. As such, the remainder, excluding the above approximately 30 square meters among the instant farmland, and the said 261 square meters among the instant farmland 2 is used as farmland subject to gift tax exemption.

(2) The instant 2, 3, and 6 farmland Dos had been employed by the ○○○ or Song○○, and had the instant 2, 3, and 6 farmland cultivated by the said 4, 5 farmland cities. The Plaintiff had been directly engaged in farming by carrying out a club business on the condition that the sales proceeds of agricultural products produced in the instant 7 through 10 farmland are distributed to 4:6, among the Jeon Young-soo, the Plaintiff, who is an agent in charge of the instant 7 through 10 farmland. As such, the ○○ or the Plaintiff, who meets the requirements for exemption from the gift tax on farmland, has satisfied the requirements for self-employed farmer or farming children who meet the requirements for exemption from the gift tax on farmland.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Requirements for exemption from gift tax pursuant to Article 15(2) of the Addenda of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

The legislative intent of Article 15(2) and Article 58 of the Addenda of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is to grant tax exemption to a farmer who succeeds to and continues to engage in farming by the deadline specified in Article 15(2) of the Addenda of the said Addenda to the Restriction of Special Taxation Act in order to promote balanced development of rural communities to train the successor to farming. Thus, it is necessary to succeed to the farmer and to protect the children directly engaged in farming by the deadline specified in Article 15(2) of the Addenda after January 1, 1999, as well as to interpret Article 15(2) of the Addenda of the said Addenda, even if the donated farmland falls under the farmland stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 58(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act as of January 1, 199 when the donor or donee continues to engage in farming by the deadline specified in Article 15(2) of the said Addenda to the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Thus, if the Plaintiff directly engages in farming from the date of January 1, 1999 to the self-employed farmer at the time of this case 2.

(2) Determination on the first argument

According to the evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2-2, each of the images of the instant farmland No. 1 and 2, around the date of the instant donation, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the cement sewage pipe, scools, etc. was left alone on the instant farmland and not used as farmland; and (b) the fact that the instant farmland No. 2 had been in existence of bean or a plant on the instant farmland; and (c) the remainder of the farmland No. 2 in this case, other than the above bean estate plant, was leased to Jeon○○○ and was cultivated by Jeon○○ and was cultivated by Jeon○○, and is not farmland cultivated directly by the Plaintiff or the largest○○○○○, and thus, the instant farmland No. 1 and 2 are deemed farmland subject

(3) Judgment on the second argument

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 3, 6, and 10, the Plaintiff may recognize that from around 1992 to December 31, 2002, the Plaintiff leased 2,3,6 farmland to △△△△△△, respectively, from 1992, to 3,00, and according to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate each of the above farmland on or before July 6, 2002 when 2 years retroactively from the date of donation of this case, and therefore, it is apparent that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for farming children under Article 58(1) of the Act and Article 57 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act at the time of donation of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was directly engaged in farming, such as practically directing and supervising the farming of each of the above farmland, is without merit without further review.

In addition, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant orchard by employing Song○ as the manager from July 6, 2002 to the time of the donation of this case, taking into account the following: (a) the fact that Song○ cultivated the orchard on the instant 4, 5 farmland under its responsibility: (b) the excreta produced from the instant orchard was shipped to the customer by having Song○ as the producer; and (c) the Plaintiff or the largest ○○○, claiming as the person being used, did not present the details of the payment of benefits to Song○○; and (d) the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff did not present the details of the payment of benefits to the instant orchard, claiming as the person being used.

Therefore, since the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be a farmer who has been directly engaged in farming for more than two consecutive years retroactively from the date of donation of this case, the disposition of this case imposing gift tax on the plaintiff on the premise that the plaintiff does not constitute a farmer.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.