It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had cultivated the instant land directly for not less than 8 years.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not submit the details of purchasing fertilizers, etc. before 2008, and the airline personnel submitted by the Plaintiff is merely nothing more than 2006 and the above airline personnel alone cannot identify whether to cultivate the land of this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case for not less than 8 years.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Gudan3123 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

Head of the Office of Government

October 28, 2013

December 23, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of the capital gains tax of 2009 against the Plaintiff on January 10, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

“A. On March 3, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred to Nonparty B, on the part of the Plaintiff, an O-Myeon O-si 777-1, 534 square meters prior to O-si 777-3, 776-3 square meters prior to O-si 284 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) and an O-si 247 square meters prior to O-si 240 square meters; (b) did not file a report on capital gains tax; (b) the Defendant, upon conducting on-site verification of each of the above land, deemed that the entire land does not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption for eight years; and (c) on January 10, 2012, the Plaintiff decided and notified the Plaintiff of OOO for capital gains tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”; and (c) the Plaintiff dissatisfied with such decision and received a request for review from the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on March 21, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff had resided in the vicinity of the land of this case since 1989 and engaged in agriculture after residing in the vicinity of the land of this case. Since each of the above lands was not less than eight years old until the transfer to a third party, the disposition of this case by the defendant of this case should be revoked as unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

1) Even if the fact that land has been cultivated as farmland is recognized, it is not presumed that the owner is not the owner of the land, and the fact that the land has been cultivated as farmland ought to be proved by the transferor who asserts such fact (Supreme Court Decision 92Nu11893 delivered on July 13, 1993).

In addition, Article 66 (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Dec. 2, 2012) stipulates that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own land or growing or growing them with his/her own labor by at least half of farming work.

"2) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances are comprehensively taken into account: (a) the Plaintiff did not submit the details of purchasing fertilizers, etc. before 2008; (b) the Plaintiff’s airline was not merely after 2006; (c) the Plaintiff’s farmland ledger against the Plaintiff was prepared on August 9, 2004; (d) the Plaintiff’s farmland ledger was registered as the change on the land around February 14, 2007; (e) NonpartyCC, accompanied by the on-site verification by the public official in charge as an OO Ri, did not cultivate the land in this case without cultivating it; and (e) Nonparty 1 cannot be excluded from the Plaintiff’s testimony or retail business since 14 years after the Plaintiff’s production of the land in this case; and (e) Nonparty 4 had no other evidence to acknowledge that the land was cultivated by the Plaintiff, even if the land was cultivated as farmland, Nonparty 4 had no capacity to directly use the land in this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.