Early High Court 201J 0793 ( October 25, 2011)

It is difficult to recognize as being a serious one for not less than eight years.

It is difficult to recognize that one half or more of the farming work has been cultivated by his own labor in the transferred farmland in light of the fact that the distance between the farmland and the residence is 35 km, that the transportation business and the real estate leasing business have been engaged in the agricultural products, and that there is no objective evidence on this, although there is no objective evidence on this.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation

2011Gudan1601 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Category XX

Head of the Office of Government

October 17, 2011

October 31, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 24,983,410 against the Plaintiff on December 9, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 16, 1992, the Plaintiff: (a) donated the farmland of this case from Y 00-0, 000-0, 173 square meters prior to 000-0, 1,563 square meters prior to 00-0, 96 square meters prior to 00-0, 112 square meters prior to 00-0, 112 square meters prior to 000-0, 669 square meters prior to 000-0, 47 square meters prior to 000-0, 27 May 2009, and acquired it.

B. On August 5, 2009, the Plaintiff deducted the total amount of capital gains tax calculated by applying the provisions on reduction and exemption of capital gains tax for self-employed farmland for at least eight years under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010) and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21565, Jun. 26, 2009) from the total amount of capital gains tax to be reduced and exempted, and then filed a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax after deducting the total amount of capital gains tax calculated by applying the provisions on reduction and exemption of capital gains tax for self-employed farmland for at least eight years, the Defendant deemed that the instant farmland does not constitute self-employed farmland for at least eight years and imposed and notified the Defendant on December 9, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 16, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on April 25, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. The legality of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff resided in the Dong-gu city adjacent to the farmland of this case and cultivated the farmland of this case directly for not less than 8 years, the transfer income tax on the farmland of this case constitutes "self-arable farmland for not less than 8 years" under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and thus, the disposition of this case under a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In order for the farmland of this case to be subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to the provisions of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Plaintiff shall reside in a Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland of this case is located or a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto for not less than eight years after the Plaintiff acquired the farmland of this case and be engaged in the direct cultivation, that is, the cultivation of crops or the cultivation of perennial plants, or cultivate or cultivate not less than 1/2 of the farming works with his own labor, and the burden of proof for such

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2, and 3 to the whole purport of the pleadings are as follows: (i) although the plaintiff resides in the Gu Office adjacent to the farmland of this case, the distance between the farmland of this case and his residence is about 35km; (ii) the plaintiff has been engaged in transportation business and real estate leasing business from 192 to 2009; (iii) the initial developer in the farmland ledger was about April 12, 2007; and (iv) although the plaintiff cultivated and sold crops, it is difficult to believe that the entry of Gap evidence No. 6 submitted by the plaintiff was insufficient, and there is no objective evidence such as receipts, etc.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

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.