2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A. On May 18, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired ○○○○ ○, ○, ○, ○, 447-5, and 5137 square meters, respectively. On October 11, 2007, the Plaintiff divided the said farmland into ○○ ,00,000 square meters, ○○ ,00,000, and 4777-8, and 4240 square meters, ○ ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

B. On April 25, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired KRW 22,000,000 from 84,000,000,000,000,000 for △△△△△△, △△△△, △△, △△△, and then applied for reduction of capital gains tax on June 2, 2008 by deeming that the instant farmland constitutes a substitute farmland for farmland under Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

C. On February 1, 2009, the Defendant rejected an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the ground that the Plaintiff did not "direct farming", but corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 120,110,610 of capital gains tax on the land for non-business (hereinafter "the instant disposition") in 2007 by applying the tax rate of 60% to the Plaintiff.

(d) The plaintiff, on April 15, 2009, filed an objection to the Central Tax Tribunal on August 12, 2009, and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on August 12, 2009, but was dismissed on December 2, 2009. The plaintiff filed an objection on March 4, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 21, 22 Eul evidence 1.2.6 through 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, from January 2003, 2003 to ○○○○○ City, was referring to ParkA as referred to in Article 80-2 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, Etc., and “direct cultivation of Madal and bean” in the farmland of this case. Therefore, the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for reduction of capital gains tax due to farmland substitute land.

(b)Acts and regulations;

It is the same as the entry of the attached statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On January 3, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report to ○○ City, △△△○, △△△○, 80-2, and continued to reside together with the ParkA, which was put on his resident registration, and around March 2005, the Plaintiff paid a communications fee to the SK Telecom ○○○○ Office located in ○○○○○○, ○○○○○, around August 2004, and was supplied with low voltage power from the Korea Electric Power Corporation on the farmland before the instant division.

(2) From 2005 to 2008, the statement of purchase of agricultural chemicals, fertilizers, and farming materials under the Plaintiff’s name is as follows:

(3) The Plaintiff’s use of tax-free petroleum on the ledger for the management of tax-free petroleum in the head of the ▽▽△ agricultural branch was not prohibited, but the Plaintiff’sbubed Park Jong-A owns the agricultural machinery of agricultural acquisition machines, agricultural Trackers, management machines, power-driven machines, and power-driven machines. From 2005 to 2008, gasoline 299liters and via 3422liters are used respectively.

(4) On December 11, 2008, the Plaintiff, on the farmland ledger issued by the head of ○○○○-si, ○○○○○○-si, owns the instant divided farmland (divided farmland: 'self cultivation’, 'self cultivation’, 'dual cultivation’: 'self cultivation’, 'self cultivation’, and the instant substitute farmland ( 'self cultivation: 'self cultivation’, 'self cultivation’, and 'miscellaneous rice').

(5) ○○시장이 2009. 3. 18. 원고에게 통보한 영농손실보상금 지급내역 상, 이 사건 농지는 영농손실보상금 지급대상으로서 그 보상액은 10,904,320원이다. 원고(○○시 ▽▽면 ◇◇리 512-11 ▲▲주택 304호)는 ○○시장으로부터 이 사건 농지 지상 비닐하우스(철파이프비닐) 1동에 관하여 500,000원을, 정화조(FRP 15인용) 1식에 관하여 600,000원을 각 지장물보상금으로 수령하였다.

(6) This Court stated that BB, from 2004 to 2007, deemed that the Plaintiff spawn a dry field with the farmland of this case from 2004 to 2007, spawn and spawn a dry field, spawn, spawn, and spawn with the instant farmland, and spawn with the instant farmland.

(7) On the other hand, the plaintiff is unmarried from June 1, 2005 to August 31, 2005, and there was no particular income other than the wage of 4,050,000 won as an instructor of a private teaching institute.

[Ground of Recognition] The evidence evidence Nos. 7 through 18, 23, 24, Eul 3 through 5 (including each number), the images thereof, and the testimony of the witnessB

D. Determination

(1) According to Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter "the Restriction of Special Taxation Act") and Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the farmland substitute land (Article 67(3)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act) acquired a new farmland after the transfer of the previous farmland requires that the farmland was cultivated directly by residing in the previous farmland for at least three years. However, Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act newly established as of December 31, 2005 does not stipulate that the meaning or scope of "direct cultivation" shall be delegated to the subordinate laws and regulations. Article 67(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act of the same day provides that "direct cultivation" means that a resident is engaged in the cultivation of the crops or the growing of perennial plants in his own farmland at all times or in the cultivation or cultivation of at least 1/2 of farming works with his own labor

However, the provision of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act was incorporated into the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act with regard to the interpretation criteria of ‘self-brucation' or ‘direct cultivation'. The above provision of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, even though there is no delegation provision of the mother law, is difficult to view that the above provision of the Enforcement Decree is directly bound by the court or the people. On the other hand, with respect to ‘self-brucation' or ‘direct cultivation', it has been interpreted that the above provision of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is not only a case of self-brucation, but also a case of cultivation or direct cultivation by the family members living or living together with the family members of the same household (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1859 delivered on February 3, 195). The provision of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act includes a case where a resident does not regularly engage in the cultivation of agricultural products in his own farmland or has been employed by another person with occupation other than agriculture, but also includes farmland from the family members.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged, although the Plaintiff was working as an instructor of a private teaching institute from June 3, 2005 to March 3, 2005, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff continued to engage in gambling along with ParkA, which was put in his residence located in the △△△△○ City from January 3, 2003, and had been suffering from farming and fishing in the farmland of this case, and that the Plaintiff continued to engage in farming and fishing in the farmland of this case, and therefore, the Plaintiff is deemed to meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of income tax by the farmland substitute.

Therefore, the disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff did not do not do so directly is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.