2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On December 4, 1990, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 300 m2,000 m2 (200 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000.

B. On May 25, 2009, the Plaintiff directly cultivated the farmland of this case for at least eight years upon filing a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax for the transfer of the farmland of this case to the Defendant on May 25, 2009, and filed an application for reduction of capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same).

C. On March 15, 2010, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 165,210,190 on the Plaintiff following the transfer of the farmland in this case (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have directly carried out at least 1/2 of the farming work with his own labor.

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on September 15, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including the Gaz number) without dispute

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff directly cultivated the farmland of this case from the time of acquiring the farmland of this case to the time of transferring the farmland of this case. As such, the disposition that excluded the application of the capital gains tax reduction and exemption provisions on self-Cultivating farmland is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff had his domicile in the EE City (FF or Hdong) from October 24, 1990 prior to the acquisition of the instant farmland to the date of the move-in report as FF Dong 260-3 GG apartment 205, around October 24, 1990.

2) 원고는 1977년경 당시 ZZZZ 주식회사(현재 XXXX 주식회사이다)에 생산직 현장근로자(용접부문)로 입사하여 그 때부터 1999년경까지 정규직 근로자로 근무하였고, 2000년경부터는 위 회사의 하청업체에서 계약직 근로자로 근무하고 있다.

원고는 위 1977년경의 입사 이후 EE시 Y동 소재 공장에서 근무를 해 왔는데, XXXX 주식회사가 전북 WW으로 공장을 이전하고 EE시 Y동 소재 공장을 페쇄함에 따라 원고도 2006년경부터 전북 WW에 있는 공장에서 근무하며 주중에는 공장 부근의 기숙사에서 생활하고 주말에만 EE에서 생활하게 되었다. 원고의 근무형태는 주간근무 또는 주 ・ 야간 2교대 근무이다.

3) On March 1, 1992, the farmland ledger prepared by the EE market stated that the Plaintiff was self-fluenced, and the Plaintiff received subsidies for rice income preservation directly from 2002 to 2006, for which the system of direct payment for rice income preservation was implemented. As the farmland in this case was incorporated into a public project, the Plaintiff received farming compensation as a farmer of the farmland in the compensation procedure.

4) 이 사건 농지에서 500m 정도 떨어진 곳에 사는 곽PP은 이 법정에 증인으로 출석하여 원고가 이 사건 농지에서 벼농사를 지으며 매일 아침 물꼬를 보고 가는 등 직접 농작업을 하는 것을 보아왔다는 내용의 증언을 하였다. 또한 이 사건 농지가 소재한 마을의 주민들인 김KK, 주LL 등은 1992년부터 2008년까지의 기간 중 원고가 이 사건 농지에 새벽 일찍 나오거나 밤늦게까지 있으면서 농사일을 하는 것을 보았고, 원고의 부탁으로 탈곡을 해주거나 모내기, 밭갈이 등을 도와준 적이 있다는 내용의 사실확인서를 작성해 주었고, OO시 SS면 QQ리에서 RR정미소를 운영하는 선NN은 원고가 1993년부터 2002년경까지 자신의 정미소에서 도정을 하였다는 내용의 사실 확인서를 작성해 주었으며, 나MM, 박UU, 강VV 등은 1993년경부터 2002년경까지 원고가 수확한 쌀을 매년 구입하였다는 내용의 사실확인서를 작성해 주었다.

5) On June 25, 1999, the Plaintiff registered as a member of the EE Agricultural Cooperative, but changed the membership to the EET. The Plaintiff owned and cultivated the farmland of xx-dong 591 and 7 parcels.

6) From May 12, 2004, rice farmers were created in the farmland in this case, after the land category was changed to 'electric field' upon the Plaintiff's application on May 12, 2004, dry field crops were cultivated, such as old-gu, and according to 'the major input volume and time table of rice for each Do', which is the data of the National Statistical Office, 'the data of the National Statistical Office', where rice farmers live as rice in the area of 3,008 square meters of the farmland in this case, the required time per year was reduced every year, and 91.2 hours per year in 193, but it was investigated as requiring 41.37 hours per year in 209, and it was converted to 10 hours per day (based on 10 hours per day).

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 11 (including each number), the witness's testimony, and the purport of the whole defense

D. Determination

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, i.e., ① the distance between the farmland of this case and the Plaintiff’s domicile and the Plaintiff’s workplace, the Plaintiff’s work environment, and the size of the farmland of this case and the labor force necessary for rice farming company, etc., the Plaintiff appears to have sufficiently secured farming time to cultivate not less than 1/2 of the labor force necessary for cultivating the farmland of this case. ② There is no person who can be deemed to have cultivated the farmland of this case other than the Plaintiff and saltT. Since saltT owned and cultivated eight or more lands besides the farmland of this case, the farmland of this case seems to have been owned and cultivated by 1/2 or more of the Plaintiff, ③ the Plaintiff received subsidies for rice income preservation, and the Plaintiff was registered as the Plaintiff in the public records, such as the farmland ledger, and ④ neighboring residents verified the Plaintiff’s self-refluence by citing specific facts, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the farmland of this case is insufficient to confirm the Plaintiff’s self-confluence with the Plaintiff’s own labor force of this case.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which the Plaintiff deemed to have cultivated directly for not less than eight years, falls under the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and thus, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.