early 2014 Middle 5005 ( December 31, 2014)

No person shall be a self-arable farmland for at least eight years for which capital gains tax is reduced.

It is insufficient to recognize that the farmland in question was directly cultivated by engaging in the cultivation of crops in the key farmland or cultivating one-half or more of the farming works with his own labor.

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

2015Guhap1695 Demanding revocation of disposition of capital gains tax

Park AA

○ Head of tax office

December 17, 2015

2016.01.07

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 00,000,000 on March 5, 2014 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Details of the disposition of the instant case;

A. On March 23, 1995, the Plaintiff purchased 8-1 land of this case on March 23, 1995, ○○○○○○, 7, and 9 of this Ri, 8-1 land of the same Ri on March 25, 1995, 8-1 land of the same Ri on November 1, 1996, and 6 land of the same Ri on November 25, 1996, and acquired ownership (hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case”). B. On August 3, 2012, the Plaintiff sold the instant land to ○○○, and on August 24, 2012, the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for 20 years or more on the ground that it did not belong to 20 years or more of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 14, 2013; hereinafter the same).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence 2, 3, and 4 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant land from August 3, 2013 to sale to KimB, the Plaintiff directly cultivated or cultivated special-purpose crops, such as yellow, sugar, and virtue, from each of the instant land. As such, each of the instant land constitutes one’s own farmland for not less than eight years, which is prescribed by the reduction or exemption clause of capital gains tax as the reduction or exemption clause of the instant land. Accordingly, the instant disposition, which is contrary thereto, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

Article 66(13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "The term "the term "the direct cultivation" in Article 69(1) of the Act means that a resident is engaged in cultivating or cultivating crops or perennial plants at his own labor for eight or more years, or is engaged in cultivating or cultivating 1/2 or more of them with her own labor, among the land in which a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree residing in a location of farmland is located, and which is directly cultivated in such a manner as prescribed by Presidential Decree." The term "the direct cultivation" in Article 66(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 22193, Feb. 19, 200; Presidential Decree No. 22010, Feb. 4, 20197)" means that the transferred land.

(A) The pictures of Gap evidence 7-1 to Gap evidence 7-4 and Gap evidence 8-1 to 14 are not confirmed as to whether each of the lands of this case was taken, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff directly cultivated and cultivated them even if the lands of this case were taken and the crops were planted, such as pictures.

(B) The evidence No. 9-1 and No. 2 are receipts related to the confirmation that the Plaintiff purchased yellow sul and sulel seeds from the KimCC around February 2003. However, according to the statement No. 7 and the testimony of the witness KimD, the Plaintiff provided the instant land and the KimD agreed that the Plaintiff would directly cultivate each of the instant land in around 2003 and set up all farming houses, such as dry field, seed wave, sulp, sulp, Kim Jong-m, and Dudne management, and that KimD agreed that the said evidence directly cultivated each of the instant land. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff supported the Plaintiff’s direct cultivation.

(C) Each of Gap evidence Nos. 6-1 and 6-2, and each of Gap evidence Nos. 13-1 through 10’s pictures is merely evidence as to the fact that the plaintiff gets a yellow and dry technology, or that the plaintiff was equipped with yellow and diapering facilities after harvesting, and thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff cultivated the above crops directly from each of the land of this case.

"(라) 갑 제11호증은 제목이 '농작물 밭떼기 계약서'라고 기재되어 있다. 그러나 그 계약서에는 단지김DD가 1,000만 원을 원고 명의 계좌를 입금한 후 작업하고 2008년 4월 말까지 밭을 비운다'는 취지만 기재되어 있을 뿐인데다가, 을 제7호증의 기재와 증인 김DD의 증언에 따르면, 그 계약의 당사자인 김DD는 위 계약서의 내용에 관하여원고가 이 사건 각 토지와 씨앗을 제공하고, 김DD가 황기, 더덕 농사를 지어 이를 일부수확한 후 약 2,000만 원 상당의 더덕이 남아 있는 상태에서 그중 원고의 몫인 1,000만 원 상당의 더덕을 김DD가 돈을 주고 샀으며, 2008년 4월 말까지 증인 김DD가 이 사건 각 토지를 비워준다는 취지의 계약이라고 진술하고 있으므로, 계약서의 제목으로 밭떼기가 기재되어 있다는 사정을 들어 원고가 이 사건 각 토지를 자경하였음을 인정하기 부족하다.",(마) 갑 제12호증은 원고가 이 사건 각 토지를 제공하고 증인 김DD가 임차료를 지급하고 경작한다는 취지이므로, 오히려 원고가 자경하지 않았음을 뒷받침하는 증거이다.

(F) The evidence No. 15-1, No. 2, and No. 16 are merely the content that the Plaintiff supplied human resources to a herb plant and farm owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff has replaced each of the instant land.

(G) No. 20-1 through No. 5 is merely a content that spreads the phrase “crops cultivated by the Plaintiff” from the Plaintiff, or sold it to others by purchasing or receiving yellow dust, etc. from the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff has replaced each of the instant land.

(h) Since the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant land, the witness EE’s testimony did not know that the Plaintiff was a farmer for the first few years after the purchase of the instant land, but did not know whether he was a yellow farmer, and the KimD testified that he was not aware of who was a leading farmer even when he was scambling, so it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was self-scambling each of the instant land for at least eight years.

(i) Although the Plaintiff is indicated in the farmland ledger as the farmer of each of the instant lands in the farmland ledger as set forth in Gap evidence No. 10, the farmland ledger is prepared and kept for the purpose of farmland management and the efficient implementation of agricultural policies, and there exists a considerable case where the farmland ledger is prepared only formally for various tax reduction and exemption, and there is insufficient practical examination by the administrative authorities thereon. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff re-c

(j) According to the evidence No. 14-1 and No. 14-2’s confirmations, it is difficult to believe the Plaintiff’s direct farming from 1995 to 2011; however, the right E, the holder of the title deed, testified that the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of virtue and yellow farmer in each of the instant land; the text and the signature column of the person under whose name the document were written are different; and the relationship between the Plaintiff and the person under whose name the document was written.

(k) The recording recording of Gap evidence 17 was recorded by the plaintiff with the right E and his wife. The statement of the right E or his wife is mainly a positive statement in the plaintiff's physical records, and there is no direct content, and it is difficult to believe the above contents in light of the testimony of the right E and its contents.

(l) The evidence No. 19-1, No. 19-2, and No. 19-2 are written confirmations in the name of neighboring residents. It is merely a simple content that the Plaintiff left a farmer on the ○○○ side, and thus, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff was self-employed on each land of this case for at least eight years.

(3) Rather, according to the statements in the evidence Nos. 7-17 (including the land number) and the testimony of the witness KimD, it seems that KimD paid the Plaintiff the price to the Plaintiff during most of the periods for which the Plaintiff cultivated, and received and cultivated each of the instant land from the Plaintiff.

(4) Therefore, the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax is lawful without applying the instant reduction and exemption provisions on the grounds that the Plaintiff is not deemed to have cultivated each of the instant land directly for not less than eight years.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.