No plaintiff may be deemed to have been self-employed for more than eight years.

It is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff cultivated at least 1/2 of his own labor during a period of not less than eight years, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2019Gudan332

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

May 29, 2019

June 26, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Each imposition of KRW 00,00,000 (including additional taxes) for the transfer income tax of 2010,000 (including additional taxes) and special rural development tax of KRW 0,000 (including additional taxes) for the Plaintiff on October 2017 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 00, 198, the Plaintiff acquired 1/2 shares of 0,00 square meters prior to 67,674 square meters prior to ○○-dong 67,00, and acquired the remainder of 1/2 shares of the mother land due to inheritance on October 00, 1990. Thereafter, on October 00, 201, the mother land was divided into 0,000 square meters prior to 0,000,000 square meters prior to 67,00,000,000 square meters prior to 0,000,000,000 square meters prior to 0,000,000,000 square meters prior to 0,000,000 square meters prior to 67-1,00

B. On October 0, 201, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land and the instant land to the Republic of Korea, which was owned by the Plaintiff, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, 351 square meters of forest land, and 63-7 forest land and 213 square meters of forest land in Gyeonggi-do, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to the Republic of Korea for the purpose of acquiring public land through consultation (hereinafter “instant transfer”).

C. On October 0, 2010, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax following the transfer of this case, and met the requirements for reduction or exemption as prescribed by Articles 69(1) and 66(1), 4, 5, and 13 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter the same) (hereinafter referred to as “requirements for reduction or exemption of self-employed farmland for at least eight years”), while filing a report on the transfer income tax for the year 2010 by applying the provisions on reduction or exemption of transfer income tax, and filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for KRW 00,000,000,000 when filing a report on the transfer income tax for the year 201.

D. The Defendant conducted an investigation of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff from October 0, 2010 to October 0, 2010, the Defendant determined that the instant land cannot be deemed to have been self-sufficient for not less than eight years, and excluded capital gains tax exemption claimed by the Plaintiff. On October 0, 201, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and notification to the Plaintiff of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional tax) and special rural development tax for the year 2010 (including additional tax) and KRW 0,00,000 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection on October 00, 2010. However, on October 00, 2010, the objection was dismissed. On October 00, 201, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 00, 201, but the appeal was dismissed on October 00, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff had cultivated bean directly from around 1980 to around 1980. The plaintiff developed land with permission to change the form and quality of the mother's land on October 0, 200, and cultivated bean, ship reasoning, Dok, Dok, Dok, Dok, Dok, Dokne, Dok, and Dok.

In addition, the Plaintiff harvested the fruit trees on the instant land, and collected them from the instant land on October 0, 201, and appraised on October 00, 201. In light of the receipt of the said fruit trees, the Plaintiff could be deemed to have voluntarily recovered for at least eight years around 2010, which was around the time of the instant transfer.

As alleged by the Defendant, even if the receipt of tree is six years old at the time of the transfer of this case, it would be at least eight years if the Plaintiff added up the period from the acquisition to the transfer of this case’s land.

Therefore, although the transfer of the instant land satisfies the requirements for capital gains tax reduction and exemption under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the instant disposition that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) According to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66 subparag. 1, 4, 5, and 13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, in order to obtain reduction or exemption of transfer income tax for not less than eight years, the transferor must transfer the land directly cultivated for not less than eight years while living in the location of the land determined by the Presidential Decree, and the current status of the land at the time of such transfer shall also be farmland. Here, the transferor bears the burden of proving that the transferor directly cultivated the transferred land for not less than eight years (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7074, Nov. 22, 2002). The transferor is a person who asserts exemption of transfer income tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7074, Nov. 22, 200; thus, the transferor is presumed to have cultivated the transferred land as farmland, and thus, the transferor’s direct cultivation of the transferred land must be verified (see, etc

2) In light of the following facts or circumstances, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff cultivated not less than 1/2 of the land of this case with its own labor during the period of not less than 8 years in consideration of all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, the instant disposition made on the premise that the requirements for reduction and exemption of self-farmland were not satisfied for not less than 8 years on the transfer of the land of this case.

① The Plaintiff asserts that he directly cultivated the instant land from around 1982 to 1986, but there is no objective material supporting the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff satisfied the residential requirements prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act only by moving into Seoul ○○-gu adjacent to the instant land that must be from May 10, 1999 and residing therein. As such, the period is not included in the self-employed period.

② In light of the fact that an application for permission to change the form and quality of land submitted by the Plaintiff to the Government Mayor around November 2001 also states that “A mother land has a form of land category all or perfect in the public land register and has not been cultivated for several years due to the impossibility of vehicle traffic,” it does not seem that there was a direct cultivation that could have been included in the Plaintiff’s own cultivation period until around October 2000.

③ The Plaintiff asserts that the land was developed with permission to change the form and quality of the mother’s land on October 2000 and then cultivated crops, such as bean, bean, bean, and Dora, but there is no objective data supporting this.

④ Ultimately, it is true that the fact that the instant land was cultivated as farmland was cultivated. However, in the actual investigation process of the transfer income tax, the Plaintiff stated that “the period during which the instant land was cultivated by planting the fruit trees at the time of the instant transfer” was six years, and that “before planting the fruit trees, the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land before planting the fruit trees, but used the instant land as farmland by another person for planting bean, and was in possession of the land as idle land because it was not frighted. However, around 2000, the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that “the period during which the instant land was planted by planting the fruit trees at the time of the instant transfer” was 3 to 4 times the previous farmland survey.

⑤ In light of the Plaintiff’s above statement: (a) as a result of the appraisal conducted by the Korea ○○○ Corporation’s Compensation Team on each tree planted on the instant land at the time of the instant transfer, the assessment conducted on October 0, 201 by the ○○○○○○○○ Foundation on the instant land; and (b) the compensation was determined by the assessment conducted on the instant land as of October 0, 201; (c) the time at which the Plaintiff planting the relevant land appears to have been 200 years after the time when the said property tax was imposed heavyly; (d) therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the period during which the tree

(6) The written opinion on the confirmation of the receipt of the fruit tree submitted by the Plaintiff (Evidence A No. 8) is deemed to have been made only by the ageme, and it is difficult to believe that the subject matter of appraisal is the fruit tree planted on the instant land because it is unclear whether it is the fruit tree planted on the instant land. Even if the receipt of the fruit tree planted on the instant land is 13 years, as shown in the above written opinion, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff, insofar as the Plaintiff cannot confirm the receipt of the fruit tree at the time of planting, as long as it is impossible for the Plaintiff to confirm the receipt of the fruit tree at the time of planting on the instant land, the receipt of the pine tree later revealed does not make it possible for the Plaintiff to specify the time of planting the pine tree on the instant land (this argument is rejected by the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff needs to verify an objective receipt by appraising the receipt of the pine

7) In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge in the instant case that, from the fact that the instant land is planted, the management of the tree was continued and the harvest of the tree was harvested. Even if it is recognized that the time of the instant transfer had elapsed for not less than eight years from the time of planting the tree, the fact alone does not necessarily mean that the Plaintiff continued to cultivate the instant land for the period of planting the tree directly.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.