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

A. On April 26, 2002, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of 1/3 shares of the 000 OOdong 00,616 square meters (hereinafter “the instant orchard”). On May 7, 2010, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the 1/3 shares of the 1/3 shares among the 00 OOdong 00,616 square meters (hereinafter “the instant orchard”).

B. On July 30, 2010, the Plaintiffs reported and paid capital gains tax and special rural development tax calculated by applying Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “Special Taxation Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s preliminary return of capital gains tax to the Defendant constitutes one of the farmland of the instant orchard for at least eight years in this case upon filing the preliminary return of capital gains tax with the Defendant.

C. According to the records of the Board of Audit and Inspection, it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to regard the instant orchard as self-sufficient, and Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is not applied, and on July 1, 2011, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax and the special rural tax as stated in the claims against the Plaintiffs on July 1, 2011 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On September 23, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a trial on September 23, 201, and the Tax Tribunal on February 201

17. The decision of dismissal was made.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-satched facts, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including those with serial numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs input labor force of more than 1/2 of the farming work in the instant orchard under their own responsibility and directly captured the spawn. Plaintiff KimB purchased fertilizers and agricultural chemicals on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and received the actual farming compensation from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation. The harvested spawn directly sold or processed from the site spawn and sold, and the sales price distributed to the Plaintiffs, the co-owner of the instant orchard and the joint cultivator. Accordingly, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiffs did not own the instant orchard was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) The main content and principle of interpretation of the statute

Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "The income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the land which is subject to agricultural income tax and which is directly cultivated by a resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of such land for not less than eight years shall be reduced by 100/100, and "direct cultivation" under Article 66(13) of the same Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22583, Dec. 30, 2010) means that "the resident is cultivating or cultivated with his own labor not less than 1/2 of the farming or perennial production in his own farmland and 1/2 of the farming or perennial production in his own labor" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu19639, Jul. 19, 200). 205.

2) Determination as to whether the plaintiffs directly cultivated the instant orchard

On June 21, 2010, 10, 100, 100, 100, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11, 18, and 20, 10, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 10,000, 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

가) 원고 김AA은 주식회사 HH관광산업의 대표이사로 'HH호텔'이라는 상호로 호텔을 경영하는 한편，부동산 임대업을 하고 있고，원고 김AA의 아들인 원고 김BB 은 'KK'라는 상호의 유흥주점과 한식집을 운영하면서 부동산 임대업을 하고 있으며， 원고 김AA의 딸인 원고 이CC은 원고 김BB과 함께 한식집을 공동으로 운영하면서 주식회사 지노테크의 대표이사로 소프트웨어 개발업을 하는 한편， 부동산 임대업도 하고 있고， 2002년부터 2009년까지 이들의 수입금액은 아래 [표] 기재와 같은바， 이와 같이 많은 사업을 운영하면서 고소득을 올리고 있는 원고들이 상당한 규모의 이 사건 과수원(전체 면적 9，616㎡， 포도나무 2，986주， 매실나무 110주)에서 필요한 농작업 의 1/2 이상을 자신들의 노동력에 의하여 경작할 수 있을 정도의 시간적 여유가 있었 다고 보기는 어렵다.

B) This GG, which prepared a confirmation document on the present state of cultivation to the plaintiffs, was found to have been carried out by Posib in the instant orchard, and it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiffs directly cultivated the instant orchard, as the confirmation document on the present state of cultivation was written and written, and whether posib had the intention to do so.

C) On October 19, 2010, Park L LL, which is booming in the vicinity of the instant orchard, was found on October 19, 2010 by a person who is an OO of an O hotel, and tried to rescue people or to take a boom, etc. by finding them more than four years prior to the occurrence of a 4-year period. There is also a fact that O was frighting a fright up with a frightet and receiving money from OO, and it was often carried out by paying out a fright up with money from OO. It was also frequently found that O made it difficult for OO to take the hotel staff to take up the hotel staff and fright up a fright up with a frightite (Plaintiff KimA) with a fright, and that she was able to see that she was operating and managing the instant orchard, and that it was difficult for her employees to have prepared the instant certificate and the instant H.

D) It is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff KimA was aged in 1934 and suffering from urology, and that the health condition was insufficient to distinguish, and that the Plaintiff KimA was directly engaged in urology.

3) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiffs have cultivated the instant orchard directly for eight years is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiffs' claims in this case are all dismissed as it is without merit, and they are decided as per Disposition.