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

A. On March 14, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 000 m200 m2 (hereinafter “the land in this case”) on a Madex, UOri, 000 m2 (hereinafter “Madex”). On August 20, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred 00 m2 (00 m2) to DDex.

B. On October 25, 2010, the Plaintiff applied Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010) to the Defendant for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax of KRW 00,000 on the ground that the Plaintiff filed a scheduled return of tax base for capital gains tax on the instant land for at least eight years.

C. On September 1, 2011, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant farmland for at least eight years, denied the Plaintiff’s application for reduction of capital gains tax, and deemed the instant land as land for non-business under Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10408, Dec. 27, 2010), denied the special deduction for long-term possession, and issued a correction and notice of KRW 000 for capital gains tax for the year 2010 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service on February 20, 2012, but was dismissed on May 11, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-satched facts, Gap evidence 1, 4, and Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff had cultivated the instant land directly for not less than eight years, and the transfer income tax should be reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, but the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012), the Plaintiff has to directly cultivate the instant land while residing in the Si/Gun/Gu where the instant land is located or in the Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto, or in the area within 20km in straight line from the relevant farmland, or to cultivate or cultivate the crops or perennial plants on a direct basis, or bear the burden of proving such requirements.

(2) In light of the following circumstances recognized by adding the entire purpose of the pleading to the descriptions and images of Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 6 (including household numbers), and witness ChoB's testimony is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff has self-defenseed the land in this case for not less than 8 years (including household numbers) by only the descriptions and images of Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 6, and evidence 6 (including household numbers), and there is no other evidence to support this. Accordingly, the plaintiff's disposition in this case is lawful and not acceptable.

① From July 1, 200 to February 11, 2003, the Plaintiff operated a corporation EE (main issues: alternative energy and environmental development); (ii) from September 26, 2001 to June 30, 2002, “EE” in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul (OOdong 000 to June 24, 2003; (iii) operated the health food wholesale business in its trade name from Jun. 1, 2003 to Jun. 24, 2004, and (iv) operated the Seocho-gu OOdong 000 to Jun. 14, 2007 to Seowon 30G 14, 2007 to Jun. 14, 2007.

(2) If it is merely an indirect management of agriculture with concentrate on other occupation, it is difficult to regard it as an "self-defense" as stipulated in Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

③ Although the Plaintiff stated the farmland ledger against the Plaintiff as one of the instant land, the said farmland ledger was first prepared on January 15, 2008, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had cut down the instant land for more than eight years solely on the basis of the entry into the farmland ledger (In addition, the said farmland ledger also contains both the land category and the actual status of the instant land recorded in the farmland ledger, and it is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion that the said farmland ledger was dissipatedd by the drilling, drilling, and so on at the time of the preparation of the said farmland ledger).

④ The Plaintiff not only failed to submit objective evidence on the details of purchase of farming equipment, pesticides, seedlings, etc. necessary for the cultivation of the instant land, but also failed to present data on the disposal of agricultural crops cultivated on the instant land.

⑤ On April 14, 2003, the airline margin of the instant land seems to exist in part of the instant land, and most of the remaining land were left abandoned in the site, and on October 30, 2007, the airline margin of the instant land was left abandoned as the entire site of the instant land, and on the airline margin of September 17, 2009, only deemed to exist in part of the instant land, and it was not discovered that the instant land was used as a dry field and was not used as farmland at the time of shooting of the aerial photography.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.