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

ｏ 제5쪽 2번째 줄의 "군포군"⇒"김포군"

ｏ 제5쪽 1번째 줄의 "○○○휴게서"⇒"○○○휴게소"

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachmentcheon District Court 2007Gudan1801, October 25, 2008]

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

A. On February 13, 1978, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land jointly with ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○-do, 135-6 Forest land (hereinafter “instant land”). On February 22, 1990, the Plaintiff donated 1/2 shares of ○○○, ○○, ○○, on March 2, 2005, transferred the instant land to ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, but on March 31, 2005, applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the ground that the instant land falls under one’s own farmland for at least eight years.

B. On April 12, 2006, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax of 15,567,150 won, resident tax of 2005, and 1,556,710 won on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not constitute one of its own farmland for not less than eight years, and thus, it does not constitute an exemption from capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the land of this case is subject to exemption from capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act because the land category of this case is forest land, but it is virtually corresponding to farmland because it is a night tree orchard. Since the plaintiff has done so for more than eight years, the transfer of the land of this case is subject to exemption from capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not fall under the above exemption since the plaintiff did not own the land of this case while working

(b) Related statutes;

(1) The former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7428 of March 31, 2005)

Article 69 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

(1) With respect to the income accruing from a transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree among the land which is subject to taxation of agricultural income tax (including those subject to non-taxation, reduction and exemption, and small collection; hereinafter the same shall apply), which is cultivated directly by the resident prescribed by Presidential Decree residing in the location of such land for not less than eight years, the tax amount equivalent to 100

(1) The former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19023, Aug. 31, 2005)

Article 66 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

(1) The term “resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of any farmland” in the main sentence of Article 69 (1) of the Act means a person who has cultivated while residing in an area falling under any of the following subparagraphs (including any area which falls under the time of commencement of cultivation, but comes not to fall under it due to a reorganization

1. An area within a Si/Gun/Gu (referring to an autonomous Gu; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) where farmland is located;

2. An area within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to an area referred to in subparagraph 1.

(4) The term “land prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in the main sentence of Article 69 (1) of the Act means the farmland that has a fact that one has cultivated for not less than eight years between the time of acquisition and the time of transfer, and that falling under any of the following subparagraphs. In this case, in calculating the period of farmland inherited, the period acquired and cultivated by an ancestor shall be deemed the period during

(5) The farmland subject to paragraph (4) shall be based on the farmland as of the date of transfer under Article 162 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

(1) Enforcement Rule of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 421 of March 11, 2005)

Article 27 (Scope, etc. of Farmland)

(1) Farmland under Article 66 (3) of the Decree shall be the full answer and land actually used for cultivation regardless of the land category on the public cadastral book, and shall include the farming shed, compost, pumping station, water pumping station, branch office, farm road, waterway, etc. directly necessary for the management of farmland.

C. Determination

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and Article 27 of the Enforcement Rule of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act for 8 years or longer mean that a resident has cultivated farmland for 8 years or longer between the time he/she acquired farmland while residing in an area within a Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland is located or adjacent thereto and the time he/she acquired it from the time he/she acquired it, and that it is confirmed as of the date of transfer. The purpose of the exemption provision of capital gains tax on self-arable farmland is to provide support for policies to prevent the decline of rural population and to foster agriculture by allowing a person engaged in agriculture to engage in long-term agriculture by exempting transfer income tax, etc. for 8 years or longer, so that he/she may be engaged in agriculture for the purpose of tax imposition. "The land directly cultivated" under Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act means that he/she directly cultivates, dry field, tending, grow, and harvest it, but it also includes a self-employed farmer who directly or indirectly engaged in agriculture under 97.

According to the facts of this case, the plaintiff's ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s testimony (except for the portion which is not believed later) was located in the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, but the plaintiff was living in the 190s, on January 11, 1994, at the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○, 465-5, which was located in the 6th night time on the 6th night time on the 195’s land. On the 196th night time on the 4th night time on the 6th night time on the 4th night time on the 195’s land. The plaintiff had no value of the above ○○○○○○○, which was located in the 6th night time on the 6th night time on the land.

Therefore, in light of the above facts and the purport of the relevant laws, the Plaintiff cannot be exempted from capital gains tax pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations on the transfer of the instant land.

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.