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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 111,114,391 against the Plaintiff on September 8, 2016 is revoked.

A. On February 6, 1991, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 3,541 square meters in total (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) of three parcels, including 000-10 square meters in 00,000-10, 0000-10, 000-5 762 square meters in 00,000-5, 000-5, and 2,163 square meters in 3,541 square meters in total (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”) on September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 3,541 square meters in 0,000,000 00,000 00 00,0000 00,000 00,000 00,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000

B. After investigating the transfer income tax of the Plaintiff from June 8, 2016 to June 27, 2016, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not cultivate at least 1/2 of the instant land with his own labor and did not meet the requirements for self-sufficiency reduction and exemption. On September 8, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 111,114,391 of the transfer income tax reverted to the year 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On December 9, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but was dismissed on February 16, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 5, Eul 1, and 8 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the vicinity of the instant land, the Plaintiff moved to a 45-year agricultural household, including solar or pro-friendly BB, 16-year agricultural household, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case should be revoked as unlawful, even if the Plaintiff and his family members cultivated the farmland owned by the Plaintiff, including the instant land, and the farmland owned by BB-owned, including the farmland in this case, and the farmland owned by the Plaintiff, including the farmland ledger or the village residents, were fully recognized as a certificate of cultivation prepared by the farmland ledger or the village residents, application for coal, etc.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66(1) and (13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, in order to obtain reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax, a Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant farmland is located, a Si/Gun/Gu located within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the relevant farmland, or an area within a 30km radius from the relevant farmland, and the relevant farmland must be cultivated directly. In this case, "direct cultivation" means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland at all times or by cultivating or growing them with his/her own labor. The meaning of "one-2 or more self-work force" should be interpreted as meaning as meaning in gram (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du19700, Dec. 27, 2012). In such cases, even if a person is engaged in farming concurrently, if he/she is engaged in another occupation, it cannot be deemed as an indirect reduction or exemption from capital gains tax (see, 2019.

2) In light of the above legal principles as to whether the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land directly for at least eight years, comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the respective entries and the entire purport of the pleadings, including the records and images of Gap 1 through 4, and 6 through 20 (including the serial number), it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

○ Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act), with respect to land directly cultivated by a resident of the farmland for at least eight years, to protect the farmer by lowering the tax burden and to promote the development and encouragement of agriculture, on the other hand, it is reasonable to interpret the language and text strictly in that the provision may be abused as a means of tax evasion.

○ The Plaintiff, immediately after the acquisition of the instant land as indicated in the table below, moved on December 18, 191, 191, had been registered as a resident of 00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 to now, and reported the earned income between approximately KRW 1,50,000,000, which was less than KRW 2.5 million while engaging in guard and cleaning operations from 1994 to 2011. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff continued to put his own labor into the instant land in excess of a considerable distance from the instant land while living in a water source and raising a considerable amount of earned income, is difficult to accept.

○ The Plaintiff and BB made a statement in conformity with the Defendant’s investigation officer to the effect that “the Plaintiff cultivated most of BB after the Plaintiff’s director as a source of income.” This statement may be evaluated as having high credibility in light of the developments, instruments, and the existence of the content of the statement in addition to all the above circumstances. Even when considering the age, health status, etc. of BB, insofar as the cultivation of BB is consistently mentioned in the Plaintiff’s certificate of cultivation within the cultivation confirmation submitted by the Plaintiff, such judgment does not change.

○ Even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion or submitted evidence, the Plaintiff asserts that the family, including BB or spouse, was a farmer, or submitted a written confirmation to Nonparty NN that he/she entrusted the work of agricultural machinery, such as dynasty, dynasty, and compact dynas, and recognized the possibility of cultivation by other persons than the Plaintiff himself/herself.

In light of the fact that ○○ and other nearby residents’ certificate of cultivation submitted by the Plaintiff is merely a document to the effect that the Plaintiff’s cultivation is confirmed abstractly, and that the details of the sales or consumption of agricultural products produced and confirmed in the instant land were not submitted, and that the Plaintiff received rice subsidies from 2006 to 2008, while BB received rice subsidies from 2009 to 2015, the remainder of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to be presented as a document to prove the Plaintiff’s self-sufficiency for at least eight years.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted, and the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.