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

A. On April 6, 1998, the Plaintiff acquired 2,248 square meters and 179 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”) prior to 00,000,0000,0000,0000, and transferred it to the GCC on November 10, 2008, and calculated capital gains tax calculated on February 2, 2009 on the capital gains and the previous return on the instant land at KRW 000,00,000, considering the instant land as farmland for at least eight years under Article 69 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Restriction on Taxation and paid capital gains tax as KRW 00,00,00,000, which is to be paid after subtracting the tax credit for preliminary return and the final return tax amount from KRW 00,00,00,000.

B. On June 16, 2010, the Seoul Regional Tax Office issued a corrective order to exclude the application of capital gains tax reduction since the instant land does not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of farmland for at least eight years, and the Defendant, according to the corrective order, excluded the application of special long-term holding deduction on the instant land, and excluded the application of 60% of the special long-term holding deduction on the instant land and the application of 000 won reduced or exempted, thereby additionally imposing KRW 000 for capital gains tax for the year 2008 on the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, 11, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the land of this case as farmland was cultivated directly by the Plaintiff while residing in the location of the land for not less than eight years, it should be reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and does not fall under the non-business land under Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act. The disposition of this case on different premise

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, there is no dispute between the parties between the parties, or between Gap evidence 7-2, Eul evidence 5-5, and Eul evidence 5-6, and some testimony of Kim II, which are proved to be added to the whole purport of the pleadings, the following circumstances are taken. The plaintiff does not always engage in "direct cultivation" in the land in this case for 8 years or longer from the land in this case, i.e., "direct cultivation", and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff has cultivated or cultivated one-half or more of the crops or perennial plants with his own labor, i.e., the period under subparagraph 1 of Article 168-6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, i.e., the period exceeding two years from the five years from the previous transfer date, the period exceeding one year from the previous three years from the transfer date, and the period exceeding 20/100 of the possession period of the land in this case, and the plaintiff's assertion that the land in this case is legitimate and acceptable.

① The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff cultivated the land in this case together with his wife, mother, and son's family members, on the premise that it should be deemed that the plaintiff cultivated the land in this case directly. However, Article 66 (12) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act clearly states that "the residents are engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants in their own farmland or growing or growing them with 1/2 or more of them with their own labor". Thus, it is not allowed to interpret that the farmland in this case includes cases where the residents have cultivated them by living or living together with their family members, and it is difficult to apply the meaning of Article 6 (1) 2 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act to the same effect as the above "self-owned land" in Article 6 (12) 16 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 69 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act to the effect that it is difficult to apply the meaning of "self-owned land in this case."

② During the period in which the Plaintiff owned the instant land, the Plaintiff left 53 times and stayed abroad from J Construction Co., Ltd, J Electronic, and JJ, etc. for 222 days, while serving 53 times as directors, managing directors, vice presidents, and president. The instant land seems to have been excessively wide enough for the Plaintiff to cultivate more than 1/2 of the farming work with its own labor, as its total area is 2,426 square meters.

③ In relation to the cultivation of the instant land, the Plaintiff did not submit the receipt proving the purchase of fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, agricultural machinery, etc., and evidence supporting the sales of agricultural products, and did not have registered the instant land in the farmland ledger in the name of the Plaintiff.

④ While the Plaintiff owned the instant land during a considerable period, Professor was residing in a plastic house located in the instant land for a considerable period of time, and PE appears to have been engaged in agriculture. As such, considerable parts of the farming work in the instant land are highly likely to have been engaged in agriculture, and the Plaintiff filed an application as a witness and filed an application with PE and adopted it by this court.

3. Conclusion

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