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

Sector shall be revoked.

A. On July 4, 1979, the Plaintiff acquired forest land 1037 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) on the ground of inheritance, and transferred KRW 250 million to A and one other on July 16, 2015, and reported the transfer income tax for self-arable land under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) by applying the capital gains tax reduction and exemption provisions for self-arable farmland under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. After on-site verification, the Defendant confirmed that the transfer of the instant land is not subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax due to farmland self-fluence, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 41,101,080 for capital gains tax belonging to February 7, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for adjudication on April 26, 2017, but the request for adjudication was dismissed on July 11, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff acquired forest land, including the instant land, 30,591 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant forest”) by inheritance, and moved to the bewing rock around 1995, and had directly cultivated crops, such as bean, bean, bean, bean, bean, dne, and Go-gu, etc., on the instant land since around 20 years prior to the death of a house in the forest of this case while living in the mountain of this case. Therefore, the instant land constitutes subject to reduction or exemption for capital gains tax for 8 years. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It 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), (4), and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26754, Dec. 22, 2015; hereinafter the same), in order to have the transferred land reduced or exempted from the transfer income tax for one or more years, the transferred land is farmland: (i) the current state at the time of transfer is farmland; and (ii) the transferor is a land directly cultivated for eight or more years while residing in

한편, 8년 이상 자경농지 감면요건에 관한 증명책임은 양도소득세의 감면을 주장하는 납세의무자에게 있고(대법원 2002. 11. 22. 선고 2002두7074 판결, 대법원 1994. 10. 21. 선고 94누996 판결 등 참조), 공부상 지목이 농지라고 하더라도 현재 실제로 경작에 사용되고 있지 아니한 토지는 농경지로 사용되지 않고 있는 것이 토지소유자의 자의에 의한 것이든 타의에 의한 것이든 일시적으로 휴경상태에 있는 것이 아닌 한 '농지'라고 볼 수 없어 양도소득세 감면대상인 토지에 해당하지 않는다(대법원 1990. 2. 13. 선고 89누664 판결, 대법원 2008. 4. 11. 선고 2006두13183 판결 등 참조). 2) 원고는 이 사건 토지를 농지로서 자경한 사실을 증명하기 위해 지인들의 자경사 실확인원(갑 제7호증), 봉암2리 역대 이장 및 영농회장의 사실확인서(갑 제8호증), B의 사실확인서(갑 제10호증)를 제출하였으나 위 각 사실확인서는 원고와 작성자와의 관계, 작성 시기 등에 비추어 이를 그대로 믿기 어렵다. 오히려 을 제1 내지 3호증의 각 기재, 을 제4, 5호증의 각 영상에 의하면, 이 사건 토지의 매수인인 A은 양도 당시인 2015. 7.경의 이 사건 토지에 대하여 '딴딴하여 농사짓기에 적합하지 않았고 이 사건 토지를 취득한 후 트랙터로 갈고 농지로 이용 가능하였다'는 취지로 진술하였고, 마을 주민들도 장기간 이 사건 토지가 농지로 이용되지 않았다는 취지로 진술하였으며 2008년부터 2014년도 항공사진에 의하면 이 사건 토지가 농지로 이용되었다고 보기어려워 결국 이 사건 토지의 양도 당시 토지의 현황이 농지였다고 볼 수는 없다.

Therefore, since the land of this case was not farmland at the time of transfer, and the data submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed to have been directly cultivated for not less than eight years, it cannot be deemed that the land of this case meets the requirements for reduction and exemption of self-farmland for not less than eight years. Therefore, the disposition of this case is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.