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

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is that "before amendment by Presidential Decree No. 21565 of Jun. 26, 2009" of No. 3 of the first instance court's decision is "Article 66 (1) and 4.13 of the 6th court's decision is "Article 66 (1), 66.12", "area within Si/Gun/autonomous Gu, area within 20 km from the farmland in Si/Gun/autonomous Gu, area within 4.18 meters in straight line", "the area within Si/Gun/autonomous Gu" of No. 4.18 of the first instance court's decision is attached to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes of this court and subordinate statutes of this court, and the court below rejected the decision of No. 20 of the second instance court's decision as to the plaintiff's additional evidence submitted at the court of first instance and the second instance's second instance's second instance's decision as the witness's testimony of this case is insufficient for 8 years or more.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 66 (12) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (the plaintiff is stated as Paragraph 13 in the statement of grounds of appeal and legal brief, but according to the Enforcement Decree at the time of transfer of the land in this case, Paragraph 12 of the same Article; hereinafter referred to as "the Enforcement Decree provision of this case") provides that "direct cultivation" means that a resident engages in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his own land at all times, or growing or growing them with his own labor at least half of farming work on his own land," but this provision is a provision newly established on February 9, 2006 and newly established on August 8, 2006, the plaintiff is already involved in direct cultivation of the land in this case (the plaintiff includes not only the case of growing grandchildren in accordance with the previous Supreme Court precedents, but also the case of cultivating by employing another person under his responsibility and his own account) so it cannot be applied to the Enforcement Decree of this case at the time of determining whether the plaintiff's direct farming is cultivated.

B. Determination

First, as to the claim that the provision of this case should not be applied to the plaintiff who had already cultivated the land of this case for more than eight years prior to February 9, 2006, Article 2 (3) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19329 of February 9, 2006) provides that the amendment of capital gains tax under the above Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall be applied from the transfer after the enforcement date of the amended Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Act No. 8739) and Article 1 of the Addenda of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7839 of December 31, 2005) provides that the above amendment should be enforced from January 1, 2006. The plaintiff's assignment of this case's land of this case as a matter of course is without merit.

Next, as to the assertion that the provision of the Enforcement Decree of the instant case is null and void because there is no provision on delegation, Article 69(1) through (8) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 921, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that the specific scope of the provision shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree by declaring the land directly cultivated for at least eight years as the object of exemption from capital gains tax. Article 66(4) through (8) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides for the subject of exclusion from the farmland cultivated by himself/herself for at least eight years. Article 66(12) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides for the purpose of embodying the meaning of "direct cultivation" with the same content as the self-regulation provision under subparagraph 5 of Article 2 of the Farmland Act. Thus, Article 66(12) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act does not have any provision on delegation or it goes beyond the limit of delegated legislation (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du842

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.