National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2011-019 ( October 27, 2011)

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

Even if farming materials or duty-free oil were purchased, there is insufficient materials to be deemed to have been used for the cultivation of the land of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the direct cultivation. Thus, the disposition that excluded self-employed farmland from reduction or exemption is legitimate even if it was left or directly conducted for the cultivation of the land to a third party.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation

2011Guhap2437 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

United Kingdom A

Head of Changwon Tax Office

March 8, 2012

March 22, 2012

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The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 129,06,649 on February 7, 201 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 27, 1994, the Plaintiff received a donation of 000 m200 m200 m200 m200 m23 m2 in Seocho-gu, Changwon-si from her husband’s grandchildB, and completed the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (amended by Act No. 4586, Dec. 10, 193).

B. According to the fact that the land of this case is incorporated into theO district development project of Busan and Jinhae Free Economic Zone on February 13, 2007, the Plaintiff agreed to acquire public land of this case between the Gyeongnam-do Development Corporation and the Gyeongnam-do Development Corporation on January 31, 2008, and the Gyeongnam-do Development Corporation completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 4, 2008 by making the above public land acquisition as the cause of consultation.

C. The Plaintiff did not file a final return on capital gains tax on the acquisition of the above public land through consultation, but the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for not less than eight years, and issued a disposition of imposition of capital gains tax amounting to KRW 129,006,649 for the Plaintiff in February 7, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence 1, 2, Eul 1 evidence, the whole purport of the pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land by donation from the DamageCC on December 29, 1980, was conducted on a 24-year basis other than leased to KimF for the three-year period from around 2005 to around 2007, but was directly cultivated for 24 years, it was unlawful for the Defendant to exclude the application of the capital gains tax reduction and exemption provisions on self-Cultivating farmland, and to impose tax as stated in the purport of the claim.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

A. According to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921 of Jan. 1, 2010) and Article 66(1), 4, and 13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21565 of Jun. 26, 2009), where farmland is located, areas within Si/Gun/autonomous Gu adjacent thereto, areas within Si/Gun/autonomous Gu within 20 km from the farmland, and residents living within 20 km from the farmland have cultivated farmland directly for eight or more years until the farmland is acquired and transferred, tax amount equivalent to 10/100 of capital gains tax on the income accruing from the transfer of the relevant land shall be reduced or exempted, and direct cultivation refers to the direct cultivation or cultivation of crops or perennial plants by 1/2 or more of their own labor force. It is recognized that the direct cultivation of the land should be proven by the person who directly transferred the land for reasons of such provision to the extent that it can be proved by 197.

B. The evidence as shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion reveals that there were some of the statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, 12 through 15, and 19 (including a serial number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness Kim GG testimony, and witness appointment II. However, in light of the following circumstances, these evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff or grandchildB directly cultivated the land of this case for not less than eight years, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

(1) ① Ownership 6,603 square meters in the column of farmland cultivation in the farmland ledger (No. 7) with grandchildrenB first prepared on April 1, 1994 (final revision, May 27, 2010) with farmers as farmers, and owned 8,094 square meters in aggregate of 13 square meters in 10,603 square meters, 1,491 square meters in 2,93 square meters in 2,93, and 1,491 square meters in 3,484 square meters in 10,000 square meters in 3,610 square meters in 3,610 square meters in 10, and the remaining land in 13,000 square meters is not included in the farmland ledger, and the Plaintiff or grandchildren did not directly own the land in 20,000 square meters in 20,000 square meters in 30,000 square meters in 20,000 square meters in 20,000.

(2) According to the trading statement (Evidence A8) of the Plaintiff’s agricultural bank account, the Plaintiff received KRW 11,834,000 from the OFC on November 16, 199 to its own agricultural bank account (Account Number: 11,834,00, and received several transfers of money under the name of purchase encouragement support fund, farming material support fund, or HHsan on several occasions, but it is difficult to find out what the said money was paid to the Plaintiff or what name the money was paid to the Plaintiff. Otherwise, it is natural to view that BaB, who directly cultivated the orchard at the time, was transferred to the said account under the name of the OFC, was transferred to the said account, and the said specification also is insufficient to support the direct exploitation of the instant land.

(3) Even if the Plaintiff or BaB purchased agricultural machinery and materials, such as a written confirmation of the purchase of agricultural machinery and the written confirmation of the purchase of agricultural production materials (Evidence A. 12), it cannot be readily concluded that the said fertilizers and agricultural chemicals were used in the instant land, since the Plaintiff was engaged in growing farming or fruit trees on land other than the instant land, as seen earlier.

(4) It is insufficient to view that the duty-free oil sold, such as the Tax-Free Oil Management Book (A evidence Nos. 13 through 5) was used for the cultivation of the instant land. Even if used for the cultivation of the instant land, it is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff is only the trader’s name, and it cannot be ruled out that the actual farmer is another person. Therefore, it is insufficient to support the fact of direct cultivation.

(5) Each written confirmation under the name of HII, KimGG, and LJJ (Evidence A 15) is limited to the extent that it is confirmed only that the Plaintiff or LB received daily allowances from LB and attempted to work as a farmer, without specific reference, or that the Plaintiff or LB directly cultivated by the Plaintiff or LB. It is difficult to view that there exists an independent value of evidence proving direct cultivation as an independent value of evidence (the testimony of the witness KimG and the testimony of witness II cannot be deemed that there is an independent value of evidence for the same reason).

C. Rather, Kim GG, from around 20 June 20, 1985 to around 10, 200, resided in the 200-Gu, Jinwon-si, and cultivated the instant land from around 10 to September 1997. The Plaintiff’s 20-year agricultural income preservation account, including the Plaintiff’s 20-year agricultural income preservation account, stating that the Plaintiff’s direct cultivation of the instant land from around 20-year rice income preservation account was not limited to 10-year agricultural income preservation account, and that the Plaintiff’s 20-year agricultural income preservation account was not limited to 20-year rice income preservation account. According to the Plaintiff’s 20-year agricultural income preservation account, the Plaintiff’s 20-year agricultural income preservation account was not limited to 10-year rice income preservation account, and the Plaintiff’s 20-year agricultural income preservation account was not limited to 20-year rice income preservation account from around 20-year rice income preservation account.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.