Gangnam branch support-2015-Gu Partnership-1800 ( November 05, 2015)

Early High Court Decision 2014Du3428 ( October 25, 2015)

(as the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance) if a person directly cultivates farmland, he/she constitutes a farmer.

(The same as the judgment of the first instance court) If there are circumstances to recognize that farmland has been directly cultivated even if there is occupation, it is reasonable to reduce or exempt gift tax by constituting a farmer.

Article 71 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall reduce or exempt gift tax on farmland, etc. donated to farming children.

(Chuncheon)Revocation of revocation of the imposition of gift tax, 2015Nu1194;

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2015Guhap1800 Decided November 5, 2015

July 11, 2016

August 22, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 16,890,580 against the Plaintiff on April 7, 2014 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following additional part, and therefore, it cited this case pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act [The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) according to the evidence No. 47-1 to 37 of the evidence No. 1 to 47 of the same Act

2. Additional statements

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the above CCC directly cultivated the farmland of this case for not less than three years retroactively from the date of donation, since the Plaintiff’s father CCC, who donated the farmland of this case, does not constitute “a case where he cultivated or cultivated not less than 1/2 of the farming work with his own labor for not less than three years retroactively from the date of donation,” and thus, the disposition of this case is lawful.” In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the above CCC directly cultivated the farmland of this case for not less than three years retroactively from the date of donation. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

A. At the time of the on-site inspection of the instant disposition, the CCC was in fact involved in the farmland that gets on-site with the Plaintiff’s mother, and in view of witness DD’s testimony, related video images, etc., the CCC appears to have been partially involved in the instant farmland cultivation up to the recent period. Furthermore, as a result of the investigation conducted by the auditor, etc., the Defendant determined that the CCC directly cultivated the instant farmland.

B. Although the Plaintiff stated in the complaint and written statement (Evidence A No. 8) that “The Plaintiff’s father CCC was unable to lose knee-fee-fee-fee-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe-fe

C. In addition, even if the Plaintiff cultivated the farmland of this case under the lead of the Plaintiff and the CCC supported only a part of the Plaintiff, it can be viewed as the process of naturally acquiring the farmland of this case as the father’s father’s farmland while doing cultivation for a long time. Thus, in light of the purport of the provision on tax reduction and exemption in question, it is reasonable to evaluate CCC directly cultivated the farmland of this case with the Plaintiff, and it seems inappropriate to consider it as the same as the business with a third party with the Plaintiff, and to consider it as the same as the business with a third party, the Plaintiff bears several percent of the farmland of this case, and to consider several percent as the Plaintiff’s father bears.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.