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

This court's reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes in particular in this court, or re-convened in this court, and therefore, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

On June 30, 1965, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the instant land (OO-gun 000 square meters) pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Ownership of General Farmland (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”). The grounds for registration are recorded as sale on February 8, 1954. Therefore, in light of the Gu Residents Act that had followed the presumption of registration and the principle of intention in accordance with the Act on Special Measures, the time when the Plaintiff acquired the instant land shall be deemed as February 8, 1954 as recorded in the register, and there is no room to apply Article 98 of the Income Tax Act, Article 162(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and since the Plaintiff resided in the instant land from February 8, 1954 to October 1968, the disposition of this case constitutes a person who directly cultivated the instant land and was unlawful for more than 8 years under Article 96 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. Determination

In calculating gains on transfer of assets, Article 98 of the Income Tax Act provides that "the time of acquisition and time of transfer of assets shall be the date of liquidation of the price of the relevant assets except in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where the date of liquidation of the price is unclear, etc." In addition, Article 162 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "where the date of liquidation of the price is unclear, the date of receipt of registration or date of transfer recorded in the register, register, or register, etc." shall be deemed the time of acquisition. Each of the above provisions provides that "if the date of liquidation of the price is unclear, the date of receipt of registration or date of transfer recorded in the register, register, or register, etc." shall be deemed the time of acquisition of the assets, in principle, at the time of acquisition of the taxable income by uniformly understanding the taxpayer's exclusion and the date of transfer

Furthermore, the following circumstances acknowledged in full view of the evidence adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows; ① The registration register of the land of this case includes the grounds for registration as trading on February 8, 1954; however, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff paid the price for the land of this case on that date; ② the Plaintiff was a minor of 14 years old on February 8, 1954, and the Plaintiff was his father, and the Plaintiff was under economic activities because MaleO, his father, was under the age of 48 (1906), and ③ the special measures for special measures, as well as the transfer of ownership from the nominal owner on the registry, was immediately permitted to the final transferee immediately after the transfer from the nominal owner on the registry, and the Plaintiff’s father, etc. was over 1965 years old and over 25 years old, and it is difficult to exclude the possibility that the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case by using the special measures for liquidation over 14 years old.

Ultimately, in calculating the transfer income tax of this case, it is reasonable to determine the time of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s land pursuant to Article 98 of the Income Tax Act and Article 162(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. The fact that the Plaintiff resided in 00, OOOdong, Seoul, and was not residing at the seat of farmland after October 20, 1968 is apparent in light of the evidence as seen above. Thus, the disposition of this case, which did not apply the reduction or exemption of transfer income tax under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act to the Plaintiff, is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion in

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.