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

A. On March 22, 1995, the Plaintiff: (a) donated 425 m25 m25 m2, 426-2 m2, 354 m2; (b) on June 29, 1085, the Plaintiff acquired 1/3 of the 441-7 m2, 129 m2; and (c) on December 18, 2006, each of the said farmland was expropriated into the Korea Land Corporation.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the ground that he/she did not decrease each of the above farmland for at least eight (8) years upon filing a report on capital gains tax reverting to 2006, but the Defendant denied the application for reduction or exemption and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 17,361,660 for capital gains tax reverted to the year 2006.

C. On the other hand, on November 7, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired a coal Ri 729-3 m21 m2, 88-3 m221 m2, and on December 4, 2003, a 724-3 m2 m22 m2, each of which was held on Apr. 19, 2007. On March 27, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired a m29 m236 m2, 317 m2, 88-2, 88-3 m21 m21 m2, 88-4 m2, and 88-4 m26 m2.

D. The Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax by deeming that the Plaintiff’s return of capital gains tax reverted to year 2007 constituted substitute farmland for farmland under Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. However, the Defendant denied the application for reduction or exemption, and on January 16, 2009, notified the Plaintiff of KRW 131,133,020 for capital gains tax reverted to year 207.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 9, 10, Eul evidence 1 and 5

2. The plaintiff's assertion

As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff: (a) cultivated spawn, drilling, spawn, spawn, etc. in farmland or cultivated spawn trees, etc., and (b) left the school before his work, and (c) 1/2 or more of the said farming work were the Plaintiff’s labor force at a low time or on holidays; and (d) the said farmland directly cultivated crops, such as spawn, spawn, spawn, etc., without recognizing the Plaintiff’s application for each of the above tax reduction and exemption as lawful.

3. Related Acts and subordinate statutes.

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

(a) Whether capital gains tax has been reduced or exempted for self-arable farmland;

In full view of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where there exists a fact that a resident living in an area within a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located for at least eight years or in an area within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto has cultivated himself/herself for at least eight years from the time of acquiring the farmland until the time of transferring the farmland, the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the capital gains tax on the income accruing from the transfer of the land shall be reduced or exempted, and where the plaintiff satisfies the above conditions, (1), (2), and (3) concerning

The evidence of the above grounds for reduction or exemption is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff himself/herself had been satisfed for more than 8 years beyond the fact that the plaintiff had been satisfy in the farmland above in light of the following circumstances: the statement of evidence Nos. 4 through 8, the testimony of witness satisfy alone is different from the statement of evidence Nos. 11, the plaintiff's submission of evidence No. 11, the plaintiff was not registered as farmland in the farmland ledger, the status of farmland ownership, etc.

(b) Whether capital gains tax has been reduced or exempted for substitute farmland;

In full view of Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in order for the Plaintiff to be subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff’s substitute farmland, the Plaintiff resided in the area in a Si/Gun/Gu where the said farmland exists or in a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto for not less than three years, and cultivated directly from the said farmland. The Plaintiff’s farmland acquired within one year from the date of transfer should be cultivated while residing in the location of the said farmland for not less than three years. As such, the issue

In addition, the plaintiff should prove the requirements for reduction or exemption, and there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the above evidence alone sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff has satisfed the farmland of the above paragraph 4 for more than three years.

C. Sub-decision

If so, there is no illegality such as the plaintiff's complaint.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and it is judged the same as the order.