2. The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 158,952,360 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2015 shall be revoked.

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

A. On October 24, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired the remaining shares on September 21, 1998, on October 24, 1998, but transferred the instant land to 664,000,000,000 won to 2 other than Kim○○ and 2 other persons on March 16, 2014.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) with the Defendant upon filing a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax reverting to the year 2014 following the transfer of the instant land.

C. On September 2015, the Defendant determined that “the Plaintiff did not self-defens for at least eight years from the date of acquisition of the instant land until the time of transfer” and imposed KRW 158,952,360 on the Plaintiff on December 1, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”).

The disposition of this case is referred to as the "disposition".

D. On February 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 23, 2016, but filed a tax appeal.

The Court dismissed the appeal on May 9, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 15, 17, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From August 1970 to 1983, the Plaintiff was registered as a member of ○○ Agricultural Cooperative, and is a farmer engaged in farming until now. The Plaintiff cultivated rice from around 1997 to 2004 on the instant land. From around 2004, 1/3 of the instant land cultivated rice, and 2/3 of the said land converted into dry field, and spath and spath and spath and spath and spath and spath and spath and so forth. The Plaintiff constitutes an exemption from capital gains tax by directly cultivating the instant land for not less than eight years, the instant disposition by the Defendant of the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070 of Feb. 3, 2015), the transferor shall be exempted from the transfer income tax as a self-arable farmland in cases where he/she resided in the Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland is located or in an area within 20 kilometers in straight line from the farmland in question (the requirements for re-development) or within the Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland is located and directly cultivates (self-requirements) for at least eight years from the time when the land is acquired to the time when the land is transferred. The "farmland" is a paddy field. The "land used for real cultivation regardless of its land category on the public register," and the "direct cultivation" means that the transferor is engaging in cultivating the crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own land at all times, or cultivating or cultivating at least half of farming works

2) In full view of the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s testimony and video as well as evidence Nos. 3 through 16, and evidence Nos. 22 through 26, witness Kim ○, and the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the Plaintiff’s personal examination, the Plaintiff may be sufficiently recognized to have cultivated the instant land directly for at least eight years, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise. The grounds for determination are as follows.

① From August 24, 1970 to June 6, 2015, the Plaintiff joined the Korea Agricultural Cooperative. From August 24, 1970 to 1983, the Plaintiff was engaged in farming including livestock and fruit trees before purchasing the instant land, such as being selected as ○○ City Agricultural Management Operator. The Plaintiff had a clear substance regarding farming during the period of possession of the instant land, such as borrowing and using crym crym cryms and crym cryms, etc. from ○○ City Agricultural Technology Center for 41 days in total.

② The period during which the Plaintiff owned the instant land is at least 16 years. In light of the location, shape, etc. of the instant land, the Plaintiff’s rice shed was located in all of the instant land before 2005, and the Plaintiff’s residence and the distance of the instant land was at least 1.3 km after 2005, and the remainder 1/3 was found to have had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had

③ From around April 1997, the Plaintiff established and operated ○ Construction Co., Ltd. and sold real estate from around April 2003 to around June 2010. However, in light of the fact that ○○ Construction and Real Estate Sale Business operated by the Plaintiff, it was relatively difficult for the Plaintiff to freely engage in activities, and the degree of work performed while in office as ○○ Construction and Real Estate Sale Business, etc., it is recognized that the Plaintiff is not to be able to do so in the instant land by making use of invasion time or weekend. In light of the fact-finding and dry Field Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff could operate various agricultural machinery, such as light season and yellow field Co., Ltd. from June 2008 to June 201, the Plaintiff could not apply to the instant case on the sole basis of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff could not apply to the instant case by taking into account the following facts: (b) the Plaintiff, other than the Plaintiff, was engaged in the Plaintiff’s agricultural work.

④ Therefore, the Plaintiff’s direct cultivation of the instant land for at least eight years, at least eight years, may be sufficiently recognized as meeting the requirements for self-cultivation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair, so it is decided as per Disposition by cancelling the disposition of this case and cancelling it.