2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax**,**,*,**,*,*,* and special rural development tax*** is revoked for the Plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

The reason for this judgment is as stated in Articles 1 and 2 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part of two pages 19 through 4 pages 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ In order to have capital gains tax reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11133, Dec. 31, 201); Article 66(13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply), it is necessary to have resided in the former location of farmland for not less than eight years and engaged in cultivating or cultivating crops or perennial plants on their own land at least 1/2 of the cultivation or cultivation with their own labor. Here, the phrase “the cultivation or cultivation with one half or more of the farming works with their own labor” can be abused as a means of tax evasion, so long as it is clearly interpreted that the said provision can be used as a means of tax evasion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du1970, Dec. 27, 2012).

In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 4, 5, and 6 as a whole together with the purport of the entire pleadings, and the testimony of Gap evidence 1, 3, 5, and 19 and witness Kim* of the first instance trial after acquiring the land of this case on June 4, 2003 ***** before transferring the Corporation to the Corporation, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff cultivated the plaintiff's own labor force for not less than 8 years, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

① From around 2002, prior to the acquisition of the instant land, the Plaintiff continued to have been continuously employed in the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitanro 5-A, Jongno-gu, Seoul, and obtained separate earned income.

② There was no airline margin on the instant land in 2003 and 2004, and there was no details of the purchase of fertilizers around that time, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff actually engaged in farming on the instant land from June 2003 to June 2005, in light of the images of the airline margin of the instant land around May 2005, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land.

③ The details of the purchase of fertilizers submitted by the Plaintiff are only KRW 102,450,00 in the Plaintiff’s spouse’s name from around 2007 to around 2010. The year when the year when the Plaintiff received the receipt (Evidence A9-2) for the issuance of the Marith Health Center, which was purchased as a substitute oil. The receipt (Evidence A9-1) submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence that the Plaintiff purchased the marith and seeds such as the math and spath, etc. annually is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff purchased the Marith as above from around 203 to 14, solely on the basis of the record (Evidence A4) as it did not specify the purchase year.

④ Each entry in the certificate of the fact of cultivation (No. 11, No. 7) is the fact that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land and directly cultivated dry field farming houses, such as ancient salma and ancient salma, etc., from the instant land until the time of transfer of the instant land. The testimony of the above witness* Kim* is merely based on the fact that the Plaintiff’s husband and wife judged that he/she salflings in the instant land from the instant land, and the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s husband and wife had 1/2 or more of the farming work by inserting his/her own labor during the said period.

(5) The report of the use of land (No. 5-1) is a survey on the current status of the use of the land in this case in 2010, and the certificate of the fact of cultivation (No. 5-3) and the data related to the payment of agricultural compensation for loss (No. 6-1 through 4) are Korea******* the documents recognizing that the land in this case was destroyed from the land in this case from the date of the public announcement of the public announcement of the project to the time of the transfer of the land for the purpose of receiving agricultural compensation

(6) Even though the Plaintiff was engaged in a part of the farming work on the instant land, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff cultivated not less than half of the farming work with its own labor.

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal shall be accepted and the plaintiff's claim shall be revoked and dismissed.

Judges Shin Jin-hee

Judges Lee Jae-chul