2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Capital gains tax of 124,061,141 won (additional tax) accrued to the Plaintiff on December 5, 2016, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff on December 5, 2016

(including) revoke the disposition of imposition.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation on this part is justified under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(c)

2. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From May 22, 1995 to September 20, 1998, the Plaintiff: (a) from bb. c. c. c. c. c. 23-5, the Plaintiff:

From that end to October 6, 2010, b. c. e. e. e. e. e. e. 64 at c. e. e. 64 at c. c. e. e. e. 64 (hereinafter referred to as “○○ c. c. c.”), and the farmland of this case has been maintained for at least eight years. Thus, the disposition of this case that did not apply to the Plaintiff is unlawful.

B. Relevant legal principles

Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560 of Dec. 15, 2015) provides that "income accrued from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree, among land cultivated directly by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree in the location of farmland for at least eight years, shall be reduced by 100/100 of capital gains tax." Article 66 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25317 of Apr. 22, 2014) provides that "resident who resides in the location of farmland" in the main sentence of Article 69 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25317 of Apr. 22, 2014) means a person who resides in a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located or in an area, etc. adjacent thereto, and Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "a resident who directly cultivates or cultivates with labor force for at least two years."

In light of the literal meaning of each provision and the developments leading up to the enactment, etc., it is reasonable to determine that “direct cultivation of farmland meeting the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-farmland for eight years is directly cultivated with respect to a person engaged in agriculture regardless of his/her own labor ratio, and that he/she directly cultivated only in cases where the ratio of his/her own labor, except for a third party, is 1/2 or more of the total farming work, with respect to a person engaged in part of agriculture for reasons such as having other occupation, not engaging in agriculture at all times (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010; 2012Du19700, Dec. 27, 2012). Even if it is recognized that land has been cultivated as farmland, it is not presumed that such owner has been replaced, and the fact that he/she has resided in the farmland with farmland and the fact that he/she claimed such fact should prove such fact (see, e.

C. Determination

Examining the following circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 4 through 7 (including paper numbers), and the evidence Nos. 4 through 12, 14, 16, and 32 (including paper numbers) and the evidence Nos. 4 through 14, 16, and 32 of Gap’s witness of the first instance trial, each of the testimony of the first instance trial witnesses B, and YellowCC is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff resided in the farmland of this case for not less than eight years and engaged in the agriculture of this case at all times, or carried his own labor force of not less than 1/2 of the farming work, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit

① According to the entries in the farmland ledger, the details of electricity use, and the history of helping rural descendants, etc., it is recognized that the farmland in this case was cultivated to a certain extent. However, even in the farmland in this case, the Plaintiff did not submit at all objective evidence to confirm the Plaintiff’s self-sufficient facts, such as rice, fry, tree nursery nursery, etc., the purchase details, cultivation period, yield, sale or consumption details, and the purchase or use of goods necessary for the cultivation, etc., in the farmland in this case (i.e., raw soil, film, chemical powder, and smoke from February 2, 2005 to December 2013, 2013, it is insufficient to view such goods as goods for farming in the farmland in this case). Moreover, the Plaintiff’s cultivation period and farmland ledger, such as rice, etc., asserted by the Plaintiff, are inconsistent with the farmland ledger.

② Rather, from November 1, 1992 to October 13, 201, the Plaintiff and his wife conducted the business of cultivating and selling flowers, etc. with the mutual name of △won located in hhh-Gu Seoul ii Dong 417-3 from the plastic house board 417-3. △won was equipped with ten plastic houses, and the scale of the business was small. The Plaintiff’s wife appears to have been unable to start the operation of the said business from 00 won to 00 won because of lack of capacity. The Plaintiff’s wife appears to have been unable to have operated the said business from 00 won to 20 won due to lack of capacity. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s business purchased items from GG to 417-3, the Plaintiff appears to have been temporarily admitted from 00 won to 200 won, the Plaintiff’s total amount of land in this case’s agricultural products, and the Plaintiff’s annual amount of land in this case’s 00 won to 200 won.

③ The farmland of this case reached approximately 1,300 square meters, and even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s labor force alone cultivated and managed the farmland of this case, and that he requested the service company or hired people who live in a nearby place in the case where the Plaintiff’s losses fall short of the total losses.

④ In order to prevent ice death, the Plaintiff asserted that the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant of the plant.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted and the plaintiff's claim is revoked and dismissed.