2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

원고는 QQQ와 함께 2005. 2. 15. 부산 EEE WWW 3638-15 대 3,391㎡(이하'이 사건 종전농지'라 한다)를 5억 원에 매수하여 2005. 2. 16. 원고, QQQ 앞으로 각그 1/2 지분에 대한 이전등기를 마친 후, 2012. 1. 25. 이 사건 종전농지 전부를 RRR에게 17억 원에 매도하고 2012. 7. 31. RRR 앞으로 이 사건 종전농지에 대한 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다. 그리고 원고는 2012. 5. 1. 부산 EEE TTT 4136 답 2,899㎡(이하 '이 사건 대토농지'라 한다)를 2억 8,900만 원에 매수하여 2012. 7. 20. 원고 앞으로 그 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다.

On October 31, 2012, the Plaintiff reported KRW 110,131,702 of capital gains tax by applying the special long-term holding deduction of KRW 124,832,710 for the capital gains tax of the previous farmland of this case and KRW 43,469,630 for the farmland substitute land.

On April 30, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on April 30, 2013 that “The YY and UU have been confirmed to have been engaged in almost all agricultural works near the previous farmland of this case, so it cannot be recognized that YY and UU have invested more than 1/2 of 1/2 of her own labor force in the previous farmland of this case for not less than three years,” and that the special long-term holding deduction and exemption of capital gains tax on the farmland of this case should be excluded, and that on April 30, 2013, the Defendant would have announced the Plaintiff that the capital gains tax and additional tax of 201,724,140 won will be increased.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a pre-assessment review with the Defendant on May 7, 2013, but the Defendant decided not to accept the Plaintiff’s claim on June 4, 2013, and imposed capital gains tax and additional tax of KRW 101,724,140 on the Plaintiff on June 10, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 24, 2013 on the disposition of this case, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on December 24, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 23, 28, 29 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiff

The Plaintiff purchased the previous farmland of this case from February 2, 2005 to the time of selling it, directly carried out farming houses, such as gambling, tea, stowing, and tin, in the previous farmland of this case. From April 2012, the Plaintiff purchased the farmland of this case to the extent that it was a rice shed in the instant substitute farmland from April 2012. Therefore, the Plaintiff was unlawful in the disposition of this case where the Plaintiff excluded the special long-term holding deduction and the capital gains tax exemption for the farmland of this case, and imposed capital gains tax and additional tax on the land of this case on the grounds that it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff invested more than 1/2 of his own labor force

B. Defendant

The instant disposition is lawful for the following reasons.

1) The Plaintiff did not reside in Busan EEW 2389-8, the domicile of which was registered, and thus did not meet the requirements for residence among the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax on farmland substitute land.

2) In full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff is running multi-household construction business from April 25, 2002 to March 3, 2002; (b) the Plaintiff is running a multi-household manufacturing business under the trade name called “OOO” from June 1, 2012; (c) the Plaintiff engaged in trading of each land across the country, other than the previous farmland, on five occasions; and (d) the Plaintiff cultivated the previous farmland as a result of the Defendant’s on-site verification that the former farmland was confirmed to be UUU and Y, the leU and its arch, which are the O’s glle of the O sold the previous farmland to the Plaintiff. As a result, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have input one-half or more of its own labor in the previous farmland

3) As a result of on-site verification of the Defendant’s land of the instant substitute farmland, the cultivation of the instant substitute farmland was confirmed to AA, not the Plaintiff, which is a dong residents, and thus, it did not meet the requirements for cultivation in substitute farmland among the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax on substitute farmland.

3. Determination

(a) Regulations on the reduction and exemption of capital gains tax and special deduction for long-term holding of farmland;

1) Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12251, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same) provides that a tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the capital gains tax shall be reduced on income accruing from the substitute land for farmland prescribed by Presidential Decree as farmland that is directly cultivated by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of farmland in the manner prescribed by Presidential Decree due to the necessity for cultivation.

Article 67 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24368, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that a person who has resided in any of the following areas for at least three years with respect to a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree under Article 70 (1) of the same Act shall be a person who has resided in the area for at least three years, and each subparagraph of the same Article provides that a person who has resided in the area for a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located, an area within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to an area referred to in subparagraph 1 of the same Article, an area within 20 kilometers in straight line from the farmland concerned

In addition, Article 70 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act provides that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland in a manner prescribed by the Presidential Decree of Article 70 (1) of the above Act, or is engaged in cultivating or cultivating not less than 1/2 of the farming work with his/her own labor (hereinafter referred to as "the requirements for cultivation in the previous farmland").

Furthermore, Article 70(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act provides that "a person who has resided in a location of previous farmland for not less than three years and has cultivated while residing in a location of previous farmland for not less than three consecutive years after acquiring another farmland within one year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland" (hereinafter referred to as "the requirements for cultivation in substitute farmland") shall be the case where he has cultivated while residing in a new location of farmland for not less than three consecutive years (hereinafter referred to as "the requirements for cultivation in substitute farmland").

2) Article 95 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that capital gains shall be the amount calculated by deducting necessary expenses under Article 97 from the total amount of capital gains pursuant to Article 94, and subtracting the amount of special deduction for long-term holding from such amount. The main sentence of Article 95 (2) provides that "special deduction for long-term holding" means the amount calculated by multiplying the gains from transfer of assets by the deduction rate by holding period under Table 1 of the following Table with respect to assets under Article 94 (1) 1 (excluding unregistered transferred assets under Article 104 (3) and non-business land under Article 104-3) whose holding period is three years or longer.

In addition, according to the main sentence of Article 104-3 (1) 1 (a) of the former Income Tax Act and Article 168-6 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, where the period of land ownership is at least five years as prescribed by Presidential Decree, the period exceeding two years from the five years immediately preceding the date of transfer, the period exceeding one year from the three years immediately preceding the date of transfer, the period exceeding one year from the three years immediately preceding the date of transfer, and the period exceeding 20/100 of the land ownership period, or the farmland the owner of which does not reside in the seat of farmland

Therefore, the above farmland cannot be subject to special deduction for long-term possession.

(b) Residential requirements;

According to the evidence No. 1-2, No. 3, 4, and 6, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff was residing in the Busan EEW 2389-8, which made a move-in report on May 21, 2007, in the process of on-site verification of the previous farmland of this case, but the fact that the plaintiff was actually not residing in the above domicile is recognized.

However, as to the plaintiff's request for pre-assessment review, the defendant did not investigate the plaintiff's actual place of residence, and the plaintiff argued that he acquired the house in Busan SSSD 35-1 on June 10, 2008 and resides in it up to now, while the plaintiff purchased the above house, and the plaintiff purchased the above house in Kimhae-si OOdong and Busan SSSD, which are adjacent to the previous farmland of this case, and the business details are located in Kimhae-si and Busan SSSD, it is reasonable to deny the plaintiff's request for pre-assessment review on the ground that the plaintiff cannot be seen as not residing in the area adjacent to the previous farmland of this case or within 20km in a straight line without investigating the plaintiff's actual place of residence (Evidence 1-2 of evidence A).

Therefore, the defendant's argument that the plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for residence is against the judgment in the pre-assessment review, and in light of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff had resided in the Busan SSS D 35-1 located in approximately 6 km radius from the previous farmland of this case since 2008, and therefore, the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for residence.

C. The part of the cultivation requirements in the previous farmland of this case

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 13, 14, 19, 22, Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 11, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 10, witness YY, and FF’s testimony and arguments, the following circumstances are acknowledged:

① From around 2007 to 2012, in the south part of the previous farmland of this case, hump trees, tin trees, etc. were planted.

② 피고의 이 사건 종전농지에 대한 현장확인 과정에서, 원고와 함께 이 사건 종전농지를 매수한 QQQ는 자신과 함께 유치원에서 근무하는 원고의 조카를 통해 원고를 소개받아 유치원을 지을 목적으로 이 사건 종전농지를 함께 구입한 것이라고 진술했고, 이 사건 종전농지를 원고에게 매도한 이OO의 사촌인 YYY은 이 사건 종전농지에 있는 매실나무의 가지치기, 시비 등과 매실나무 사이의 고추, 호박, 콩 등을 심은 것은 자신이라고 진술했으며, 부산 EEE WWW 23통장인 FFF는 이 사건 종전농지에서 YYY 및 그 어머니인 UUU가 밭농사를 지었다고 진술했고, 원고, QQQ로부터 이 사건 종전농지를 매수한 RRR의 남편 GGG은 이 사건 종전농지에 건물을 신축하는 과정에서 YYY에게 농작물 보상금으로 200만 원을 주었다고 진술했다.

③ However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff, among the previous farmland of this case, cultivated the part of 1/2 south by himself. In this Court, YY merely cultivated in Busan EEW 3638-14, adjacent to the north of the previous farmland of this case, and did not have cultivated in the previous farmland of this case. The Defendant’s statement was that Busan EEW 3638-14 and the previous farmland of this case were not distinguished, and 2 million won received from GGGG, not with regard to crops of the previous farmland of this case, but with respect to the ditches near the previous farmland of this case, GG was paid compensation for the fact that GG was arbitrarily cultivated by GGGG. In addition, FF also stated that the previous farmland of this case was a parcel of land of this case, Busan EEW 3638-14 and the previous farmland of this case, and that the Plaintiff stated that it was aware that it had been cultivated by the Plaintiff.

④ According to the personal inquiries about the details of the business by each individual against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was registered as a business entity of 'III' who conducts multi-household construction business on April 25, 2002, and on June 1, 2012, 'OO' who conducts metal and creative manufacturing business, and 'III' closed its business on May 14, 2013.

However, the plaintiff asserts that "III" and "OO" are only a business operator's name, and that there is no income amount from 2006 to 2012 on the certificate of income.

⑤ From 2007 to 2012, the Plaintiff submitted to this court photographs containing the form of direct farming work in the previous farmland of this case.

④ In the farmland ledger against the Plaintiff, the record on May 2, 2010 as of May 2, 2010 on the 1,695 square meters of the previous farmland of this case, which is one-half square meters of the previous farmland of this case, is indicated as the fruit trees, farmland classification landscape, and owner. The registration information of the agricultural business entity against the Plaintiff is indicated as the type of business with respect to the 1,694 square meters of the previous farmland of this case, which is one-half square meters of the previous farmland of this case. The registration information of the agricultural business entity against the Plaintiff is indicated as the type of business with respect to the 1,694 square meters of farmland of this case, cultivation items, and cultivation area, and the actual area of the farmland of this case, 500 square meters of land, 847 square meters of land in each room, and 500 square meters of land in each of the previous farmland of this case. On June 30, 2008.

In full view of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants at least 1/2 of the remaining side of the previous farmland of this case at least 1/2 of the year from 2007 to 2012, or cultivated or cultivated 1/2 or more of the farming work with its own labor, to the effect that the previous farmland of this case was cultivated by YY, UU.S. Y, and FF. The statement made by the Defendant is difficult to believe.

D. The part of the cultivation requirements in the substitute farmland of this case

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 30 through 32, as well as the overall purport of evidence Nos. 11, witnessesY testimony and pleadings, the Plaintiff may be recognized as being frighting a rice farmer in the instant substitute farmland from around 2012. Against this backdrop, the entry of evidence Nos. 16 in the evidence Nos. 17 alone is not believed, and it is insufficient to reverse the said evidence No. 17 alone.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the Plaintiff failed to meet the residential conditions, the cultivation requirements in the previous farmland, and the cultivation requirements in the substitute farmland, is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.