2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

A. On September 18, 1991, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred KRW 34,00,000 to the largestB on August 1, 2007; and (b) filed a preliminary return of transfer income tax on September 3, 2007 pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, while holding ○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, ○4m2 (hereinafter “instant land”); and (c) filed an application for reduction of or exemption from transfer income tax on the ground that the Plaintiff, upon making a preliminary return of transfer income tax on September 3, 2007,

B. Accordingly, the defendant judged that the plaintiff could not be deemed to have been self-employed as a public official belonging to the ○○ Military Office since 1979, and that the land in this case was regarded as a non-business land and notified the plaintiff to correct the transfer income tax of 17,227,920 for the year 207.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of this case are appropriate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the instant land falls under the land of which the Plaintiff was self-employed for not less than eight years, capital gains tax should be reduced by 100%, and even if it does not fall under the requirements of self-employed land for not less than eight years in household affairs, 60%, which is a heavy tax rate, should not be applied.

B. Determination

In full view of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in cases where a resident living in a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located or in a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located for at least eight years and there is a fact that he/she cultivated for at least eight years from the time he/she acquired the farmland to the time he/she transferred the farmland, the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the capital gains tax on the income accruing from the transfer of the land shall be reduced and exempted. The requirements for such reduction

On the other hand, the transfer income tax rate should be increased in case of the transfer of non-business land under Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act. Whether certain land falls under non-business land falls under the tax requirements and the tax authorities should generally prove it. However, since the Income Tax Act widely prescribes non-business land, it functions as the grounds for reduction and exemption, it serves as the criteria for non-business land. In the case of farmland, it serves as the basis for whether it falls under the non-business land, and it can be easily proved by the taxpayer as the matters belonging to the taxpayer's territory. However, it is difficult for the tax authorities to prove the "non-business land", while it is difficult for the taxpayer to prove it as the nature of the proof, in light of the fact that the tax authorities have adopted the method of return and payment, and it is reasonable for the taxpayer to report and submit the verification data in the case of non-business land under the Income Tax Act.

In addition, it should be based on objective evidence in proving whether the farmland ledger (No. 5) written on April 14, 2003, which states public document and self-definite, has been drafted on April 14, 2003. However, since that time, the plaintiff continued to serve as a public official of the Gu office, there are many other farmland except the land in this case, and the plaintiff owns a large number of farmland in the farmland, and carries a dry field farmer as well as a rice shed in the farmland, and according to the witness high-ranking testimony, the machinery work was entrusted during the farming work, and the remainder was together with the High-Tech, a full-time farmer. In light of the above facts, it is difficult to believe that considering the above facts, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff cultivated the land in this case for a certain period under the above Acts and subordinate statutes, and it is also insufficient to consider the plaintiff's objective evidence that the plaintiff stated the above evidence in Gap, 7, 9, 10 and 11.

Thus, there is no error in the determination of facts, such as the plaintiff's assertion in the disposition of this case.

3.In conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.