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

A. On November 16, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired 1/2 shares in relation to 815 Do-dong Do-dong 815 Do-dong 2,236 m2 (hereinafter “the instant farmland”) and transferred it to the Korea National Housing Corporation on January 16, 2009, and made a preliminary return of capital gains tax by applying Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act) on March 31, 2009.

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the farmland of this case for not less than three years; and (b) denied the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the farmland of this case and the said farmland constitutes land for non-business under Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act; (c) applied the heavy taxation rate of 60% for the transfer margin of the farmland of this case; and (d) corrected and notified the Plaintiff on October 6, 2009 KRW 129,29,590 for capital gains tax in 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On January 22, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on March 30, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff resided in the vicinity of the farmland of this case from the time of acquisition to the time of transfer, and directly cultivated the farmland of this case, the instant disposition that applied the heavy taxation rate by deeming the farmland of this case as non-business land is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9763 of Jun. 9, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "former Income Tax Act") stipulates that the transfer income tax rate shall apply to the transfer of non-business land. Whether the land falls under non-business land shall be generally proved by the tax authority because it falls under the taxation requirements. However, since the former Income Tax Act widely provides non-business land, the former Income Tax Act functions as the grounds for reduction and exemption of the non-business land. In the case of farmland, it serves as the basis for the non-business land. The matters belonging to the taxpayer's territory can be easily proved by the taxpayer, while it is difficult for the tax authority to prove the fact that the taxpayer is "non-business land" and the tax authority adopts the method of return and payment as to the transfer income tax, it is reasonable to prove that the taxpayer is not a person who has filed a tax return by selecting the taxation requirements and submits the materials.

Meanwhile, according to Articles 104 and 104-3(1) of the former Income Tax Act, and Article 168-6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301 of Feb. 4, 2009), in order to constitute a non-business land, the period of non-business in the case of land for more than five years, which exceeds two years immediately before the transfer date, (1) the period exceeding one year immediately before the transfer date, and (3) the period exceeding 20% of the period of land ownership.

As seen earlier, in the case of farmland, the issue is whether the Plaintiff has self-caped the farmland of this case is whether it constitutes a non-business land. The Plaintiff must prove that the said farmland of this case was self-defensed for a period equivalent to at least one of at least 80 percent of the requirements of the five years immediately before the date of transfer (from January 17, 2004 to January 16, 2009) (from January 17, 2006 to January 16, 2009), for at least two years (3) years immediately before the date of transfer (from January 17, 2006 to January 16, 2009), i.e., the period equivalent to at least 80/100 of the small period of the land (i.e., 1,514 days (=1,892x80/100, and below decimal point).

According to Gap evidence 13, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff's farmland was depreciated on the farmland ledger prepared in 207. ① The plaintiff's 6,15, Eul evidence 2-1 and 2-1 and the whole purport of his pleadings are as follows. The plaintiff's total salary received from 40,913,900 won, 43,648, 171 won, 47, 206, 387, 57, 207, 37207, 57, 57, 208, 57, 97, 100, 197, 197, 196, 100, 196, 207, 207, 207, 207, 57, 208, 201, 206, 206, 306, 16, 206, 201.

3. Conclusion

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