Article 153 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

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

A. The Plaintiff acquired the instant land on November 11, 1999 and transferred it to the Korea National Housing Corporation on October 12, 2004.

B. On May 28, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired farmland of 1,917 square meters prior to ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○-1 prior to the same Ri, 1,554 square meters prior to 198-6 square meters prior to the same Ri, 1,882 square meters prior to 198-6 square meters prior to the same Ri, and 391 square meters prior to the same Ri.

C. On June 30, 2005, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax that falls under the non-taxation under Article 89 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7579 of July 13, 2005) in a case where the Plaintiff transferred farmland with its own land for not less than three years and substitute land.

D. The Defendant, on July 1, 2007, determined that the Plaintiff did not own the instant land, imposed capital gains tax of KRW 62,256,720 on the Plaintiff on July 1, 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request with the National Tax Tribunal on September 20, 2007, but was dismissed on December 21, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After purchasing the land of this case, the Plaintiff directly cultivated 300 dump trees around November 1, 1999 and 380 dump trees around December 2, 2000 following the transfer on October 12, 2004. While Hansung permitted the temporary cultivation of dump trees until the time of growing the dump trees on the land other than the part where the dump trees are located, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff failed to do so was unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff operated ○○○○, a printing and painting company, at the place of residence located in Daegu-gu ○-2, ○○-dong, ○○○○, a husband, but died on November 1, 1997. On December 10, 1999, the Plaintiff changed the name of the business operator of ○○○○ to the Plaintiff and operated Kim○-nam until now.

(2) On November 11, 1999, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land. On the 25th day of the same month, 300 shares of the instant land were planted by purchasing from ○○○○○ on December 20, 200, and additionally planted 380 shares of the instant land by purchasing 380 shares of the instant land from ○○○ on December 20, 200.

(3) Meanwhile, the farmland ledger as to the land of this case was first prepared on October 27, 199, and according to the farmland ledger above, the owner of the farmland: ○○nam, the farmland classification: The owner of the farmland: the owner of the farmland, i.e., e., e., e.,

(4) On March 3, 200, the Plaintiff drafted a land management agreement with the purport that “the Plaintiff is equipped with 300 pumo trees, 2 pumocers, and drainage channels, share 1/2 out of the first time of retirement, and 1/2 of the agricultural machinery cost. Han○○ is managing the instant land from February 1, 200, when the instant land is sold and purchased, the Plaintiff may not claim ownership of the above land, and all of the above ground objects shall belong to the Plaintiff, and if the land is developed, the compensation for farming shall belong to the Plaintiff.”

(5) around November 2001, Hansung established a vinyl with a size equivalent to 532m2 square meters on the instant land, and cultivated the fruit trees and vegetables on the land, etc. excluding the land inside the said vinyl house and the part of planting trees, and the remaining land, etc. excluding the planting part of each tree. From September 2002 to December 21, 2004, a vinyl house was used for growing seedlings in its name until December 21, 2004, when it was removed.

(6) Since ○○○○2 Housing Site Development Project was implemented on August 25, 2003, the Korea National Housing Corporation, a project implementer, expropriated the instant land and the instant ground. The Plaintiff received from the project implementer the amount of KRW 467,137,80, and KRW 19,142,50, and KRW 19,147,620, and KRW 19,147,620, respectively, of agricultural compensation on November 2, 2004.

The details of specific obstacles and the amount of compensation are as follows:

(7) The Plaintiff paid KRW 15,300,00 of the above obstacle compensation of KRW 19,142,500 to Hansung. The Plaintiff adjusted the content that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 5,500,000 to Hansung by December 31, 2006, when the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the return of farming compensation (Tgu District Court 2005Kadan11035) against the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff did not pay the above obstacle compensation of KRW 15,30,000,000, out of the above obstacle compensation of KRW 19,142,50.”

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3-1 through 16, Gap evidence 6, 8, 9, Gap evidence 12-1 through 5, Eul evidence 12-2 through 5, Gap evidence 11-1, 2, Gap evidence 13-1, 3-7, Gap evidence 19, Eul evidence 1-2, 3-2, Eul evidence 2-5, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 3, each of the images of Eul evidence 12-2 and the purport of whole pleadings, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 2-5, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 3

C. Determination

The phrase “self-caping of farmland” includes not only the case of one’s own cultivation, but also the case of cultivating another person under his own account and responsibility, or of having another person’s family living or living together with the same household cultivate, but also the case of the consignment management, surrogate cultivation, lease by proxy, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu7412, May 11, 1990; 87Nu706, Mar. 8, 198; 94Nu96, Oct. 21, 1994; 90Nu639, May 22, 1990). In addition, such self-conviation must be positively proven by the transferor who asserts it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu639, May 22, 1990).

According to the above facts, the plaintiff acquired the land of this case and thereafter around February 200 and around December 20, 200. According to the farmland ledger as to the land of this case, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff self-defensed the land of this case, but it is insufficient to view that the plaintiff was self-defens the land of this case for not less than three years in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence, and the plaintiff's testimony as to Gap evidence 4-1 through 20, Gap evidence 5, 7, Gap evidence 12-3, Gap evidence 12-3, Gap evidence 17, 18, and 20 as well as witness's testimony as seen above is not believed in light of the above circumstances, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

① After acquiring the instant land, the Plaintiff entered into a land management agreement with Korea-do and the instant land.

② At around November 2001, Hansung, a vinyl, which is equivalent to 532 square meters in the instant land, has been cultivated between the said vinyl house and the remaining land except for the portions in which trees are planted, by cutting down the vinyl house equivalent to 532 square meters in the instant land, and managing trees.

③ The Plaintiff paid KRW 15,300,000, most of the compensation amounting to KRW 19,142,500 for the instant land obstacles to Hansung.

④ The Plaintiff tried not to pay KRW 19,147,620 to ○○○ on the basis of the above land management agreement, but to pay KRW 5,500,000 for farming compensation.

⑤ From the acquisition of the instant land to the time of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff employed and operated the printing and painting company’s employees.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate on the ground that the land of this case does not fall under "self-sufficient farmland for not less than 3 years."

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.