2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff. The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax aa,aa,aa(including additional tax) for the year 2012 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on January 23, 2014 shall be revoked.

- 2-

A. On June 12, 199, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 3,058 square meters prior to AAdong 160-2, 160-2, Dong-dong (hereinafter “instant land”). B. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff owned the instant land for at least eight years and sold it to others on March 5, 2012, and filed a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains on the premise that the entire capital gains amount falls under capital gains tax reduction and exemption pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. On January 23, 2014, the Defendant issued a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains on the premise that the Plaintiff owned the instant land for at least eight years and filed a revised and notified the capital gains tax reduction and exemption on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for at least eight years.

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 5, 2014, but was dismissed on November 4, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Eul's entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

From the acquisition of the instant land on June 12, 199 to the transfer date, the Plaintiff cultivated bean, bean, math, sama, sacon, sacon, sacon, sacon, sacon, etc. under the Organic Agriculture Act without using fertilizers by leasing the farming equipment from Nonparty BB residing near the said land to the transfer date. The produced crops were sold or consumed directly at the Plaintiff’s workplace

- The defendant's disposition of this case made on a different premise is illegal even though it is deemed that it satisfies the self-determination requirement in 3-8 years.

B. Determination

Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring any special circumstance, regardless of the requirements for taxation, non-taxation, or exemption from taxation, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. In particular, the strict interpretation of the provision regarding exemption requirements accords with the principle of fair taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du20116, Dec. 13, 201). In addition, even if the fact that the land was cultivated as farmland is recognized, it is not presumed that the owner of the land was minor, and the fact that the land was cultivated as farmland should be proved by the transferor of the land (Plaintiff) who asserts such fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1893, Jul. 13, 1993).

The meaning of ‘direct cultivation', which is the requirement for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, shall not be deemed to include the case in which another person is employed and cultivated under his responsibility and account, and it shall be limited to the case in which the cultivation of crops or the growing of perennial plants is engaged at all times or at least 1/2 of farming work is cultivated or cultivated

However, each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, as shown in the plaintiff's assertion, is difficult to accept it as it is in light of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the evidence as seen earlier, the statement in Eul evidence No. 4, and the witness B's testimony, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the plaintiff engaged in the cultivation of crops or the growing of perennial plants for at least eight years during the period in which he/she owns the land in this case, or engaged in the cultivation or growing of at least 1/2 of crops or perennial plants with his/her own labor for at least eight years. Rather, the part of the farming work in this case (or most), which is a neighboring resident, seems to have practically been difficult for the plaintiff to conduct the entrusted management.

① At the time of the Defendant’s on-site inspection, B had been cultivated by drilling, wave, etc. on the ground of the instant land, but at the time of the investigation, B stated that “the Plaintiff was in dry field in the farming season or harvest season, and that she helps the Plaintiff, and that she was eating harvested material by dividing it into drinking water.”

② During the holding period of the instant land, the Plaintiff operated multiple business entities, such as CCTV (FF distribution, February 20, 2003), D charcoal (O. 5, 2003 - October 8, 2007) and EE Construction (O. 5, 2003 - June 3, 2004). From March 5, 2003 to June 3, 2008, the Plaintiff is serving as the representative of FF distribution.

③ This Court testified to the effect that “B was present as a witness in this Court, and it was difficult for the Plaintiff to move the instant land into a farming machine owned by the witness at the request of the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff acquired ownership. After the Plaintiff’s acquisition, the Plaintiff did not have any farming machine. After the Plaintiff’s request, the Plaintiff got back the instant land. After the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership, the Plaintiff attempted to see what was the witness due to the Plaintiff’s experience in farming and fishing day, and what was the sloping. There was time when the Plaintiff was the time when the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and there was time when the Plaintiff was the witness. The Plaintiff testified to the effect that “I was difficult to repair the instant land with the farming machine owned by the witness.” As long as it is difficult for the Plaintiff to view that 1/2 of the farming work of this case was directly owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s disposition denying the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax against the Plaintiff cannot be deemed unlawful.

3. Conclusion

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

- 5-