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

A. On August 9, 2004, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) on December 30, 2009, the Plaintiff newly acquired on December 30, 2009, the Daejeon POOO00, 323 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”). On March 9, 201, Daejeon POO00, 1,400 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “OO00 square meters”).

B. On February 25, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax due to farmland substitute land pursuant to Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and Article 67 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22037, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Decree”) on the ground that the instant land constitutes farmland of which the instant land was self-sufficient for three or more years.

C. The Defendant: (a) deemed that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to regard the instant land as self-sufficient; and (b) deemed that the instant land transfer did not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax under the provisions of the Act; and (c) rendered the instant disposition imposing KRW 000 on the Plaintiff in June 13, 201.

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service on August 12, 201, and was dismissed on September 29, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (if available, including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff was directly cultivated in the land of this case such as worship, drilling, drilling, drilling, wave, etc., the disposition of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff did not own the land of this case is in accordance with the above law.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

According to Article 70(1) of the Act and Article 67(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Article 77(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, income tax on income accruing from the 'direct cultivation of farmland by a person who has resided in a location of farmland for not less than three years has been reduced by 100% for the necessity of cultivation.' 'direct cultivation' refers to the cultivation of crops or perennial plants on his own land at all times or cultivation or cultivation with 1/2 or more of the farming work with his own labor. It is reasonable to interpret or interpret the above provision as favorable to the taxpayer without any reasonable reason because it results in a violation of the public interest principle, which is the basic ideology of the tax law, and thus, the principle of strict interpretation derived from the principle of no taxation without law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19163, May 25, 2006).

2) Whether the Plaintiff was “direct farming” of the instant land

In full view of the evidence No. 6-1 to 3, evidence No. 7-1 to 7, evidence No. 9-1 to 5, evidence No. 10-1 to 10, evidence No. 11, and evidence No. 13-1 to 4, evidence No. 13-2, evidence No. 1 to 13-4, evidence No. 1 to 13-2, evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 13-2, evidence No. 1 to 7 of the Enforcement Decree, and evidence No. 7 of the first instance court and the first instance court witness P before the trial, the plaintiff's own disposal of the land of this case was hard to see the purport of the whole pleadings, and evidence No. 1 to 7 of the Enforcement Decree was not found to have been submitted by the plaintiff at the request of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not directly use the land of this case for the period of 1 to 209.

(A) During the holding of the instant land, the Plaintiff is serving as the representative of a manufacturing company, such as broadcasting and sound equipment and communications equipment, and was paid KRW 000 in the said company for the year 2005, KRW 000 in the year 2006, and KRW 000 in the year 2007, and KRW 000 in the year 2008, and KRW 000 in the year 2009.

(B) According to the purchase details of seedlings, agricultural chemicals, and composts submitted by the Plaintiff, and the volume of the above goods purchased in cash is insufficient to recognize that the purchase volume alone was "direct farming of the instant land" during the period asserted by the Plaintiff. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff owned 1,795 square meters prior to 00 square meters prior to the beginning of the area of the instant land in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, in addition to the instant land, while the Plaintiff owned 1,795 square meters prior to the early of October 30, 196, and cultivated reduction, drilling, and drilling in the said land, the purchase details such as seedlings, agricultural chemicals, and compost can be deemed to be irrelevant to the cultivation in the instant land.

(C) The plaintiff asserts that the dry field of the land in this case, and the dry field and sacrifies are made to GGGG, and the remaining 'the household food, farming management, and harvest' have been directly and indirectly carried out by the plaintiff at least 3/4 of the farming operations on his own, but there is no particular argument about how the plaintiff cultivated, harvested, consumed, or sold crops on the land in this case, and how to follow-up management after resecting and harvesting, etc., and there is no supporting material about them.

(D) The Plaintiff asserted that 310 square meters among the instant land was cultivated at the weekend and every holiday, and that the area of the instant land was 1,323 square meters, whichever is 650 square meters from March 18, 2008 to March 17, 2010, and the remainder of the instant land was leased to KimF, which is 673 square meters in its neighboring area, and is merely about 204 square meters in its 673 square meters in its farmland, and it is difficult for the Plaintiff to believe that the Plaintiff would have believed to be the same owner of the instant land. Furthermore, according to the Plaintiff’s airline around 209 and around 2010, according to the land of this case, the instant land was cultivated and managed adjacent to the instant land without any specific distinction between the instant land and the neighboring land (OOO000, Daejeon PO00, which is cultivated by GG and managed the instant land. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had cultivated and managed the instant land together with the instant land.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which concluded the claim reduction in the trial, is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without reason.