The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

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

A. On September 24, 2003, the Plaintiff, the father of the Plaintiff, donated the land of 307,155,330 won as compensation for the land of this case, which was cultivated on September 26, 200, after completing the transfer of ownership, etc. on the 26th of the same month, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership due to purchase by KRN on June 26, 2006. The Plaintiff received KRW 307,15,30 as compensation for the land of this case.

B. The Plaintiff purchased a 365-1 Do-ri, 2,000 square meters and 365-1 Do-ri, 988 square meters and completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the above real estate on October 24, 2006, as the above compensation, after purchasing the same Do-ri 371-4 Do-ri and 2,000 square meters.

C. On January 8, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case as farmland substitute for the land of this case. As such, the Plaintiff filed a tax base return with the Defendant by deducting the total amount of the capital gains tax reduced or exempted and exempted pursuant to Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, alleging that the land of this case was subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, and filed

D. On September 28, 2007, the Defendant issued a prior notice of taxation to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff owned the land No. 1 in this case for less than three years, and did not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax due to farmland substitute land. On December 5, 2007, the Defendant issued a notice of prior notice of taxation to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax due to farmland substitute land. On December 5, 2007, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 44,356,820 (the calculated tax amount according to the tax base + KRW 42,036,416 + penalty KRW 2,320,410) and resident tax and KRW 4,435,680 (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition of this case”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a tax appeal on June 27, 2008 after filing an objection on March 4, 2008, but was dismissed on October 14, 2008, and served a written notice of decision around October 20, 2008, and filed the instant lawsuit on January 9, 2009.

【Recognition of Military Force】 Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The plaintiff's principal

(1) The Plaintiff’s father, Kim ○, the father of the Plaintiff, was unable to engage in farming activities any longer as the Plaintiff’s father was larger than the Plaintiff’s previous reproduction of the Plaintiff at around October 12, 1997, and the Plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case from around 1998, and was donated the instant land No. 1 from the above Kim○ on September 24, 2003, which constitutes E, and this constitutes a requirement for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful for the Plaintiff to impose capital gains tax.

(2) The Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s report of exemption from capital gains tax, but took the instant disposition by internal audits, and the Plaintiff did not take any other measures to believe that the tax base return of capital gains was legally acceptable. As such, the Plaintiff’s failure to file a corrective return and pay within the payment period of capital gains tax is illegal to impose penalty tax on the Plaintiff even though the Plaintiff’s failure to file a corrective return and pay due

(b) Related statutes;

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the capital gains tax reduction requirements are met

According to Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 7 of the same Act of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, reduction or exemption of capital gains tax due to farmland substitute land for not less than three years shall be required to have resided in the previous farmland for not less than three years and directly cultivated (to be engaged in the cultivation of crops or the growing of perennial plants on the farmland owned by a resident or in the cultivation or growing with his own labor not less than half of farming work). The plaintiff received a donation of land No. 1 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on September 26, 2003 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on June 26, 2006. Accordingly, the plaintiff ultimately failed to meet the requirements of "direct farming" for not less than three years. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion in this part

(2) Whether the imposition of additional tax is proper or not

Articles 110, 111, 114, 115, and Article 178(3) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006) stipulate that a resident having capital gains shall file a return on the tax base of transfer to the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment within the fixed deadline for filing a return on the tax base after deducting the tax amount reduced or exempted and the tax amount of transfer income from the tax base shall be paid within the fixed deadline for filing a return. The head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall correct the tax base and the tax amount of transfer income where there are omissions or errors in the above return, and shall add the amount

In addition, in order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed in accordance with the law if a taxpayer violates a duty to report and pay taxes under the law without justifiable grounds, and the taxpayer’s intent or negligence is not considered as a justifiable reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du16705, Sept. 17, 1999; 98Du3532, Dec. 28, 1999); and even if a taxpayer believed a tax official’s wrong explanation and fails to perform his/her duty to report and pay taxes, it does not constitute a case where there is a justifiable reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu15939, Nov. 23, 1993; 96Nu15404, Aug. 22, 197).

Therefore, with respect to the transfer income tax that stipulates that the tax authority should correct the tax amount by a taxpayer’s declaration without the tax authority’s decision procedure, but if there is an error in the details of the tax return, the disposition of this case where the Defendant imposed the penalty tax due to the failure to correct the error by the final return deadline after the return of the tax base to the Defendant was filed, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not constitute grounds for reduction and exemption, and the Defendant did not correct the error by the final return deadline. Thus, the disposition of this

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.