With respect to the cultivation of crops or of 1/2 or more of the farming works with their own labor;

From August 2002 to July 2004, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was engaged in the cultivation of agricultural products or engaged in at least 1/2 of the farming works necessary for the cultivation during the period from July 2005 to December 2010, when the instant land was leased as a closed-down yard.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

2013Guhap3970 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Aa

c. Head of c Tax Office

May 23, 2014

July 11, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 41,923,745 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

On September 22, 2011, the Plaintiff sold the land of this case to Nab on September 4, 201, which completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 24, 1980, 201, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 31, 201. On December 31, 2011, on the ground that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case for 37,775,947 won under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the Plaintiff was notified of the imposition of capital gains tax on 20.1 Busan High Court Decision 20,30,000 won on December 21, 201, and the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the land of this case on December 21, 2012, and the Plaintiff was notified of the imposition disposition of capital gains tax on 37,775,947,747,7197 and 201.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiff

From 1981 to 1984, the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for 26 years and 1981, including rice shed and rice shed from the date of the next transfer to September 22, 201, which is the date of the next transfer. The Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for the total nine years from July 2005 to July 201, when the Plaintiff engaged in the tobacco wholesale business, from 1978 to 1997, and the Plaintiff was excluded from July 2005 to July 201, from the date of the transfer to the date of the transfer, thereby constituting the subject of reduction and exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Accordingly, the instant disposition of imposing capital gains tax and late payment on the Plaintiff is unreasonable.

B. Defendant

The period from August 1978 to June 2004, when the Plaintiff engaged in the tobacco paper wholesale business, from August 197 to July 2004, when he worked as a night guard, from August 2002 to July 2004, when the Plaintiff is engaged in the cultivation of crops, or from July 2005 to December 2010, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was engaged in at least 1/2 of the farming work necessary for the cultivation, and the above period should be excluded from the period when the Plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case. Thus, the period when the Plaintiff cultivated the land of this case is about 6 years and 10 months except for the above period, and thus, it does not constitute the subject of reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 67 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act that requires the self cultivation period of not less than 8 years.

3. Determination

A. The issues of the instant case

According to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66(13) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a person who resides in a farmland has been engaged in cultivating crops on his own farmland for not less than eight years or has cultivated not less than 1/2 of farming with his own labor, the full amount of capital gains tax on income accruing from the transfer of his own farmland shall be reduced or exempted. In this case, among the various requirements of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, whether the Plaintiff may be deemed to have been engaged in cultivating crops on the instant land for not less than eight years or having cultivated not less than 1/2 of the farming work with his own labor among the various requirements of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Considering the form and effect of the provision of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the Plaintiff, who is liable to pay tax, directly cultivating

B. Determination

1) Comprehensiveally summing up the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 8 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

The following circumstances may be known:

① On April 14, 1973, the Plaintiff moved into the Jeju-do, Busan-do, and resided in the vicinity of the Busan-do, Busan-do, and from May 31, 1993, the Plaintiff is residing in the Northern-dong (the same as the actual address) of the Busan-do. The Plaintiff’s resident is located in the area located at a distance of not less than 10km from the land of this case to the road of this case.

② From August 13, 1978 to June 30, 1997, the Plaintiff reported an average of KRW 100 million from 1992 to 1997, while engaging in the tobacco wholesale business in the Jeonpo-dong, Busan. The above store is located at a distance of at least 11 km from the instant land to the road, and is located at a distance of at least 11 km from the Plaintiff’s residence to the road.

③ From 202 to 2004, the Plaintiff, while working at Hh, a real estate rental company, as a night guard, obtained an average of approximately KRW 9 million per year. Hh, Inc., at the time, was a company with the head office of 389-6 in Seocheon-dong, Busan at the time, and the Plaintiff’s residence was approximately 3km as a road, but there was a distance of approximately 12 km as a road until the land in this case.

④ From July 1, 2005 to December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the instant land to the leastr engaged in the wholesale and retail business of scrap metal, and during the said period, the instant land was used as a cover of scrap metal.

⑤ In addition to the instant land, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on October 5, 1987 with respect to the paddy-gu 631 square meters in total, the Dong-si Do-si Do-si Do-si Do-si Do-si. The Plaintiff was fully exempted from capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act while transferring the said farmland on November 10, 2009. The said farmland has a distance of at least 20 km from the instant land to the road, and there is a distance of at least 11 km with the Plaintiff’s residence.

6. On the other hand, the farming log (Evidence A No. 8) submitted by the Plaintiff includes the contents of work for about 10 days each year from 1981 to 2000.

7) At the time of filing an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, two of three farmland members, who prepared a "written confirmation of farming facts" in the Defendant's investigation, prepared a written confirmation (Evidence No. 5, No. 6) stating that "the Plaintiff had cultivated vegetables, etc. on the land of this case since she did not do so in the Defendant's investigation." However, at the request of a public official, a written confirmation (Evidence No. 5, No. 6) was submitted.

2) Considering the instant land and the Plaintiff’s residence and the Plaintiff’s workplace, the distance between the Plaintiff’s cultivation and other farmland cultivated by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s work details and income amount, etc., it is difficult to view that the entries of the Plaintiff’s farm log (Evidence A8) and the receipt (Evidence A9 and No. 15) submitted by the Plaintiff alone carried out the tobacco wholesale business from August 13, 1978 to June 30, 197, and from the night security services to the year 2004 from the year when the Plaintiff carried out the night security services to the year 2002.

Therefore, among approximately 31 years and 3 months in which the Plaintiff owned the instant land, about 17 years in which the Plaintiff engaged in the tobacco wholesale business, about 2 years in which the Plaintiff engaged in night security services, and about 5 years and 4 months in total leased the instant land to a scrap metal retailer, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have cultivated the instant land directly, and it is apparent that the remaining six years and 11 months in total did not meet the eight-year period under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to fall under the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

C. Sub-committee

For this reason, the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax and additional tax against the Plaintiff by denying the application of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is justifiable.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.