Suwon District Court-2016-Gu Group-8061 ( October 10, 2017)

Inasmuch as a large-amount wage and salary income earner fails to prove his/her large-scale self-sufficiency in farmland, it does not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of income tax.

The disposition that excludes transfer income tax reduction or exemption on the farmland substitute for the reason that there was high-amount earned income during the period of possession of the farmland at issue, and that it is not self-sufficient because it is not presented objective evidence to prove that large-scale farmland is engaged in other occupation and self-defense.

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act: Reduction or exemption of transfer income tax for self-Cultivating farmland

Seoul High Court 2017Nu39046 Revocation of Disposition imposing capital gains tax

Park 00

00. Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Gudan8061 Decided October 2017

June 15, 2017

6.29

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 91,517,110 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on October 1, 2014 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition of some contents, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

Parts to be removed or added.

The "Witness" of the 19th and 4th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be considered as the "Witness of the court of first instance" respectively.

○ The following shall be added to the fourth instance judgment of the first instance court, the 11st instance judgment:

(1) The plaintiff argues that "direct cultivation" under Article 70 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act includes "direct cultivation by employing another person under his/her own responsibility and account." However, "direct cultivation" under Article 67 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act means that a resident is engaged in cultivating or cultivating crops or perennial plants on his/her own land at all times or by cultivating or cultivating them with his/her own labor, and its meaning is clearly defined as "one-half or more of them with their own labor". Considering that the legislative purport of the new provision is to solve the problem of reduction or exemption of capital gains tax without engaging in farming, the plaintiff's assertion that "direct cultivation" under the above provision includes another person under his/her own responsibility and account is difficult to accept (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du4830, Feb. 29, 200).

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.

.