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

A. On January 2, 1984, the Plaintiff acquired 00 m22 m2 (hereinafter “each land of this case”) such as 00 m200 m2 (00 m2,000 m2,000 m2 (hereinafter “each land of this case”), and was admitted to the Korea Land Corporation on September 29, 2009, and on October 6, 2009, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax on each land of this case to the Defendant on October 8, 2009.

B. On August 1, 2011, the director of the Daegu Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant of the result of the audit and cadastral examination that each of the instant land does not fall under farmland as of the date of transfer, and thus did not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption from self-defense for eight years. Accordingly, on December 1, 2011, the Defendant respectively corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 capital gains tax belonging to the year 2009 and KRW 000 capital for special rural development tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a revocation trial with the Tax Tribunal on February 16, 2012, but was dismissed on August 16, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, and Eul evidence 1 (if available, including the number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff acquired each of the instant lands on January 2, 1984 by inheritance, and thereafter met the requirements for reduction and exemption for 8 years, since it continued to do so from each of the instant lands until May 2005, which had been the first expropriation of the same Ri 000, which was the access road to each of the instant lands, until May 2005.

2) However, since the neighboring areas of each of the instant lands are forests and fields, the left-hand side of each of the instant lands is an expressway, and the access road on the right-hand side was first expropriated around 2005 as seen earlier, it was difficult to enter each of the instant lands, and therefore, it was difficult for the Plaintiff to have access to each of the instant lands, and since it was true that the Plaintiff did not set a farmer on each of the instant lands from that time, it constitutes a temporary absence due to inevitable circumstances, the requirements for reduction of capital gains tax for up to

3) In addition, each of the instant lands was not expropriated at the time of the first expropriation in around 2005 as a budgetary problem, and the first expropriation did not prevent access roads due to the first expropriation, and it is very unfair to apply the said reduction or exemption requirements to the Plaintiff for this reason, and is remarkably unfair even in comparison with the surrounding lands of the first expropriation.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Land eligible for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66(4) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be farmland directly cultivated for at least eight years by a resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree residing in the seat of the farmland, and the date of transfer on which the criteria for determining farmland are determined shall be the date of settlement, unless otherwise prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 162(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 162(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, such as where the registration of ownership transfer was made prior to the settlement of the price, and the payment shall be the date of transfer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du6282, Apr. 12, 200). In addition, farmland in this context shall be interpreted as land actually used for cultivation of agricultural crops, etc. regardless of its land category on the public record, such as rice paddy, field and orchard, and it shall be proved that it is not actually used by the transferor (see Supreme Court Decision 200.

2) Examining the descriptions in the instant case, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, and Eul evidence 2, and the classification of each land in the public record of this case is considered to be "responding", but it cannot be found immediately that the plaintiff was in a state of temporary absence for at least eight years, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that each land in this case was in a state of temporary absence at the time of expropriation.

3) Rather, evidence Nos. 2, evidence Nos. 6, and evidence Nos. 2 through 4 are as follows; ① The land of this case under the farmland ledger as of May 26, 1998 is indicated as temporary condition; ② The land of this case appears to be of little nature as forest land and its surrounding areas, and the land of this case is not subject to compensation no later than 000, for each of the following reasons: (i) the land of this case was indicated as of May 26, 1998, and (ii) the land of this case and its surrounding areas was indicated as the land of this case for more than 10,006, and it appears that there were no changes in the utilization status of each land of this case and its surrounding areas, and (iii) the land of this case was not subject to compensation no later than 00,000,000 of the land of this case for each of the following reasons:

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.