Article 95 of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 12420, Mar. 18, 2014) (Amended by Act No. 12420, Mar. 18, 2014);

2. BB

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

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant’s transfer income tax of KRW 0,000,000 for the year 2014 on July 1, 2015, which was reverted to Plaintiff Masung (Seoul)

Imposition and imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 0,000,000 on the Plaintiff’s accommodation in 2014

All parts shall be revoked.

A. Of the instant land, Plaintiff A acquired 1/2 shares on August 8, 2006, and 1/4 shares on January 10, 201, respectively. Plaintiff BB acquired 1/4 shares on January 10, 201, and Plaintiff BB acquired 1/4 shares on January 10, 201, and the Plaintiffs transferred the instant land on October 30, 201.

B. On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiffs: (a) Plaintiff AA8 against the transfer margin to the Defendant.

For more than a year, an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax was filed, and ② the amount of each special long-term holding deduction for each transfer margin of the instant land was deducted, and Plaintiff AA reported and paid KRW 00,000,000 for each transfer margin, and Plaintiff BB reported and paid KRW 0,000,000 for each transfer margin of the instant land.

C. However, the defendant conducted a survey of capital gains tax on the plaintiffs, and the plaintiff AA et al.

(2) The non-business land shall be deemed to fall under each non-business land.

Each transfer income tax reduction or exemption and each special deduction for long-term holding on July 1, 2015, shall be reduced by 72,747,850 won to Plaintiff A and Plaintiff BB as each transfer income tax on the transfer of the land in this case.

0,000,000 won were corrected and notified respectively (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

D. The Plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the Plaintiffs and filed an objection on September 30, 2015 with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on February 5, 2016.

Although the request for examination of the instant disposition was made, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on April 14, 2016 the Review Office by the Plaintiffs.

A decision to dismiss the Gu was made.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

1) As to the transfer marginal profit

Plaintiff AA acquired ① and removed the plastic greenhouse structure located at the same time, installed access roads and installed farmland and drainage facilities, and cultivated pine trees of 1,000 around October 207. Thus, the Plaintiff has been growing for not less than eight years by planting 1/2 of the land in this case.

(2) (2) For each transfer margin, (3)

② The Plaintiffs have cultivated landscape trees in the remainder other than where Plaintiff AA had cultivated pine trees after acquiring them. Accordingly, the area equivalent to the 1/2 shares of the instant land cannot be deemed land for non-business use. Even if the fact that the Plaintiffs had cultivated landscape trees is not acknowledged, the instant land has been restricted as a development restriction zone, and thus, it should be deemed that it does not constitute land for non-business use pursuant to Article 104-3(2) of the Income Tax Act and Article 168-14(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the transfer marginal profit

Before the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 12853, Dec. 23, 2014), this Act:

(n) Article 69(1) of the Act shall apply to the extent that the resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who resides in the farmland is eight years.

Land prescribed by Presidential Decree among land cultivated directly by any more methods prescribed by Presidential Decree.

The transfer income tax shall be exempted for any income accruing from the transfer; and

Article 66(4) and (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25677, Nov. 4, 2014) provides that "one of the meaning of direct cultivation by the method prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be "the cultivation or cultivation by one half or more of the farming works with his own labor" in his/her own farmland, and "land prescribed by Presidential Decree" shall, in principle, be "farmland which has been cultivated by himself/herself for eight or more years from the time of acquisition until the time of transfer." Meanwhile, the burden of proof of the exemption requirement shall be borne by the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu402, Oct. 13, 1987; 2016Du43725, Oct. 27, 2016; 2015Nu6257, Apr. 28, 2016).

However, the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 alone is that it is difficult to view that the plaintiff AA 1/2 or more of the farming work in the area corresponding to the 1/2 portion of the land in this case for more than 8 years, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the plaintiff AA claims that he transplanted and cultivated pine trees from October 2007. The fact that the land in this case was transferred on October 30, 2014 for which 8 years have not passed thereafter is as seen earlier. Thus, the plaintiff AA's assertion is without merit (the prior meaning of "the farming work" as provided in Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's assertion itself is included in "the works to secure a vinyl structure, the access road and the works to cultivate farmland" before planting and growing pine trees.

(2) (2) For each transfer margin, (3)

The former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 12420, Mar. 18, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) 95

Articles 104-3 (2) and 104-3 (1) 1 (a), the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 257, Nov. 19, 2014)

Article 168-8(2) of the Farmland Act and Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Farmland Act

Land in which a farmer does not cultivate or cultivate not less than 1/2 of farming work with his own labor;

respect the land for non-business use, so that the special deduction amount for long-term possession is denied;

Only with the evidence No. 1 written by the plaintiffs, 2, 3 after acquiring them, the plaintiff AA cultivated pine trees.

landscaped trees shall be cultivated with labor force of at least 1/2 of farming works in the remainder of the area other than those previously engaged;

It is insufficient to recognize that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and on the other hand, A evidence No. 1

According to the record, it can be recognized that the land of this case was designated as a development restriction zone around 1972.

Therefore, the land of this case has already been distributed to the development restriction zone before the plaintiffs acquire it.

As such, Article 104-3 (2) of the former Income Tax Act, Article 168-14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Where paragraph (1) 1 does not regard land for non-business use as land, after acquiring the land, the law.

Since it can not be seen as a case of prohibition or restriction of use under the order of the plaintiffs.

This part of the assertion is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the above argument by the plaintiffs cannot be accepted, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)