Early High Court Decision 2009Du4146 ( October 23, 2010)

Reduction or exemption of gift tax on the farmland donated to farming children;

On the one hand, in the other day, it seems that a person could have been able to grow crops sufficiently during the remaining hours by making a lecture from P.M. to P.S., and the farmland area seems to have been broad, and thus, it is deemed that it is possible to grow self without many working hours, and thus, it is deemed that the person is a farming child.

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 102,285,00 on the Plaintiff on September 4, 2009 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 3, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction of and exemption from gift tax in accordance with Article 71(1)1(a) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272 of Dec. 26, 2008), which is a provision on reduction of and exemption from gift tax on farmland donated to farming children, with respect to the aggregate of 1,038 square meters of three parcels, other than 342-1, 373 square meters, Seongdong-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sung-gu, Sung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “each of the instant farmland”), and filed a return and payment of gift tax pursuant to Article 71(1)1(a) (hereinafter “the provision on reduction and exemption”).

B. As to this, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff is not a farmer under the provision on reduction and exemption in this case; (b) excluded the application of the pertinent provision; and (c) imposed KRW 102,285,000 on the Plaintiff on September 4, 2009 the gift tax reverted to the year 2008.

C. On November 24, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on March 23, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1.2.9 No. 1 (including branch numbers)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is a farming child under the provision on reduction and exemption of this case, who has been directly engaged in farming for at least three consecutive years retroactively from the date of donation of each farmland. Therefore, the disposition of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff is not a farming child is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The following facts may be acknowledged according to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 8.11 (including the numbers of branch offices), the testimony and the whole purport of the arguments by the witness KimD.

① The Plaintiff was born in 1972 and was born in 352 EE-dong, Sungnam-si EEE-dong, 352, and was living in 717B village 212 Dong and 1002.

② According to the farmland ledger (No. 3) as to each of the farmland of this case, which was first drafted on August 30, 1993, the RedA himself/herself as its owner. The Plaintiff’s mother, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s wife are written as its member of the household. From June 17, 2009, the Plaintiff’s self-defluence is written.

③ The Plaintiff served as an instructor of a private teaching institute from 2005 to November 2008, and served in an fallen agricultural cooperative from December 2008, and the Plaintiff’s income status from 2005 to 2008 are as listed below.

④ According to the certificate of employment issued on June 16, 2009 by the president of a teaching institute for the curriculum of the curriculum of the curriculum of the curriculum of the curriculum of the curriculum of the curriculum of the curriculum of the curriculum of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, as a Korean language instructor, has served from August 1, 2007 to November 30, 2008, while serving as a Korean language instructor from November 30, 2008.

⑤ According to the lecture time table from October 15, 2007 to November 31, 2008 (Evidence 4-2, 3 of the Evidence A) from October 15, 2007 to December 31, 2007, the Plaintiff’s lecture was conducted on Tuesday, Saturdays, and Saturdays from January 1, 2008 to November 31, 2008, while the Plaintiff’s lecture was conducted on Tuesday, Tuesday, and Tuesday from Tuesday to Tuesday.

④ According to the sales by each trader in the preceding table from January 1, 2008 to June 16, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, etc. from the above agricultural cooperative.

7) According to the notice of local tax reduction and registration tax reduction and exemption certificate (No. 6-1 and 2) issued by the head of Sung-nam-si on June 17, 2009 by the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, the Plaintiff was granted 50% reduction and exemption of acquisition tax and registration tax on the ground that the Plaintiff is a self-employed farmer of each farmland in this case.

④ On February 20, 2008, Nonparty Kim Jong-il, a neighboring resident of each of the instant farmland, and two others, a letter of guarantee (Evidence No. 7) was prepared to the effect that the Plaintiff resided in each of the instant farmland from March 1995 to February 20, 2008, and engaged in agriculture together with HongA.

9. It is located within a distance of 20 minutes for automobiles from the aboveCC-dong apartment that the Plaintiff is currently residing or from the present workplace-based abortion agricultural cooperative to the farmland of this case.

10. The witness KimD testified that the HongA had no ability to wait for a farmer's death due to urology since 3-4 years ago, and now, the Plaintiff testified that she was faced with a baby in the weekend, and that she was fluencing, crying, selling, and drilling in each farmland of this case.

(2) According to the above facts, during the period when the plaintiff worked as an instructor of a private teaching institute, he appears to have been able to cultivate crops sufficiently during the day from P.M. to P.S., and from P.M. on Saturdays, he appears to have been able to cultivate crops sufficiently during the remaining hours. In addition, even after the plaintiff was employed in the SP, he seems to have been able to grow crops sufficiently at P. P. P. S. and at P., even if the total area of each of the farmland in this case is 1,038 square meters in total and has not been wide in size and has not been f.m. and has not been f., it seems that the plaintiff continued to have been able to grow crops at P.M.’s main means of living, including the plaintiff’s parents, at the time of donation of each of the farmland in this case. In light of this, the plaintiff’s assertion that the plaintiff continued to have been f.m., for more than three years since Mar. 3, 2008.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.