2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the modification of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows 2. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be corrected;

○ 5 4 p.m. “C.able rice” means “2,857 kilograms of sc.able rice”.

○ 5 pages 11 of the 11st place "No. 17" is raised with "No. 14".

○ 5 and below the 3rd below shall add “direct” to “on the right side”.

The following shall be added to the right side of the two parallel below 5 pages:

In order to apply the farming inheritance deduction, the requirement that the decedent and the heir have engaged in direct farming continuously for two years prior to the date of commencing the inheritance shall meet, respectively, and Article 16 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "in the case of direct farming, it means a case where the decedent and the heir are engaged in the cultivation of crops or the growing of perennial plants, or are engaged in the cultivation of perennial plants with their own labor by using the farmland assets, etc.

○ 6 7 pages. “The following shall be added to the right side of the 6th page.”

In addition, in light of the purport of the farming inheritance mutual aid system and the language and text of Article 16(6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it is reasonable to determine that the decedent and the heir engaged in direct farming regardless of their own labor ratio, and that a person engaged in agricultural business is directly engaged in farming regardless of their own labor ratio, but a person engaged in part of his own labor ratio excluding his/her family or a third party while engaged in farming business is 1/2 or more (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010; 2012Du19700, Dec. 27, 2012).

In full view of the following circumstances, ○○ 6-9’s 8-9 statements, “In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the aforementioned evidence,” the following circumstances are deemed as follows: “In full view of the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs and the witness evidence No. 26 of this Court, the witness testimony of this Court and the changedB, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs and the witness testimony of the EA, ParkCC, and the changedB of this Court are deemed as follows.”

○ 6th day below the 8th day, and from the 6th day to the 6th day below, the 6th day to the following:

Although it is alleged that the sale was made by the general public, each of 3 to 15 kilograms ( approximately 80 kilograms per year) is purchased by the general public.

○ 7 10 Na, one of whom is 10 Na, shall be as follows:

Even if she was aged and the inheritee had attempted to raise her children, it seems that there was a part in need of parents' fostering, and even if the inheritee and the Plaintiff KimO did not spent considerable time to raise her children, she is running a real estate leasing business;

○ 8 pages 11 "from 2010 to 2011" means "from 2010".

Under the 8th below, it is unclear how the plaintiff KimO became aware of farming, and the circumstances are as follows.

The authenticity of the certificate shall be doubtful between the decedent and his well-known person.

○ 8 The following shall be referred to as “the receipt of 6 contributions” as “the receipt of a specified amount of money on an ordinary basis.”

○ 8 The following shall begin on the first 4th day to the last day of the same line:

Since such a work is the most essential in rice farming industry related to rice farming, there is room to view that the plaintiff KimO and the decedent are entrusting another person with the main part of the cultivation of the land of this case. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the statement of each of the above written confirmation alone by the plaintiff KimO and the decedent has engaged directly in farming by performing one half or more of the farming work on the land of this case continuously since two years prior to the commencement date of the inheritance.

사) 원고들은, 통계자료에 의하면 농작업의 소요시간은 1,000㎡당 연간 16시간인데, 이 사건 토지는 16,758㎡이므로 연간 총 약 268시간2)이 필요한바, 원고 김OO는 피상속인과 함께 연간 720시간 이상의 노동력을 투입하였으므로 이 사건 토지를 직접경작한 것이라고 주장한다. 그러나 원고 김OO가 피상속인과 함께 연간 720시간 이상자기의 노동력을 투입하여 이 사건 토지를 직접 경작하였다고 인정할 만한 증거가 부족할 뿐만 아니라, 피고가 제출한 통계청 자료에 의하면, 이 사건 토지의 면적에 해당하는 1.5~2.0㏊3)의 2013년~2015년 노동력 투입시간은 1일 기준 12.03시간(2013년), 11.83시간(2014년), 10.00시간(2015년)이므로, 이 사건 토지를 경작하기 위하여 1년간 투입해야 하는 노동력은 최소 약 3,650시간으로 보이고, 원고들이 투입했다고 주장하는 시간인 720시간은 투입해야 하는 시간의 약 20%에 불과하므로 원고들의 주장에 의하더라도 원고 김OO 및 피상속인이 상속개시일 2년 전부터 계속하여 이 사건 토지에 관한 농작업의 2분의 1 이상을 자기의 노동력으로 수행하였다고 보기 어렵다.

H) On March 2017, 2017, the witness of the △△△ Court testified to the effect that it affixed and sealed the certificate of farming facts (No. 8) held by the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff. In light of the fact that the vice text of the above certificate of farming facts signed and sealed by the Plaintiff, stating, “AA was on the part of the Plaintiff’s printing side and working as a farming machine and receiving ordinary money for the instant land,” the witness of the court of this case cultivated the instant land by only the decedent, the Plaintiff KimOO, and himself before the decedent died, before the decedent died, and the Plaintiff KimOO and the two were to cultivate the instant land only after the decedent died, and even after the decedent’s death, it is extremely insufficient to recognize that the decedent continued to produce 1/2 or more of the instant land after the decedent’s death after the decedent’s death.

I) On March 2017, the witness B of this court testified to the effect that the Plaintiff signed the certificate of farming facts (No. 26) that it had been on the Plaintiff’s side. The vice text of the letter of confirmation of farming facts signed by the Plaintiff’s side stated that “AE was printed on the Plaintiff’s side and worked in the form of agricultural machinery and in return for a reasonable amount of money.” In addition, around October 2016, BB changed to the phone of the public official in charge of the Defendant who is asked for actual farmers of the instant land at KRW 1,50 won, and confirmed that the Defendant’s testimony was made on the instant land by receiving KRW 1,500 on the instant land on behalf of the Plaintiff’s side (No. 26) and then, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s testimony and testimony were made by the Plaintiff’s predecessor to the extent that the Plaintiff’s testimony was made by the Plaintiff’s predecessor and the Defendant’s predecessor, which are consistent with the contents of the above Kim 26th of the farming facts written by the Plaintiff’s.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the disposition of this case is lawful, and the plaintiffs' claim shall be dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit.