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

A. On March 24, 2010, the Plaintiff registered ownership transfer on March 26, 2010 for the following reasons: (a) OOO-dong OO-dong OO-dong 000-0 000 square meters (hereinafter the instant land) acquired on January 26, 197; (b) OO-dong O-dong OO-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O00 square meters (hereinafter the instant land).

B. As the Plaintiff did not report capital gains tax, the Defendant deemed the transfer value of the instant land as KRW 000, and the acquisition value as KRW 000,000, and imposed a disposition of KRW 000 on August 6, 2013 on the Plaintiff on August 6, 2013 (hereinafter the instant disposition) on the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff filed a petition for review against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on May 2, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul 1, 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

First, the transfer income tax should be reduced or exempted because the Plaintiff has maintained the land of this case for more than 8 years.

Second, since the time when the land of this case was transferred is not more than 2010 but not 2009, the disposition of this case imposing the transfer income tax for the Plaintiff in 2010 is unlawful.

Third, in the absence of the Plaintiff’s consent, the disposition of this case, which was imposed by the O-si, is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) As to the first argument

Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406 of Dec. 27, 2010) (amended by Act No. 10406 of Dec. 27, 201) is due to the transfer of land "direct farming" by

Article 66(13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22583, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that an amount of tax equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced on income accrued from income, and Article 66(13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22583, Dec. 30, 201) provides that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland or growing or growing them with his/her own labor not less than half of farming works. The burden of proving the fact that he/she cultivated the transferred land on his/her own land as a requirement for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on his/her own farmland is against a taxpayer who claims reduction or exemption of

In this case, the health belt and the plaintiff did not submit any evidence as to their own cultivation. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2) Second, as to the third argument

In an administrative litigation to which the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act apply mutatis mutandis, the burden of proof is, in principle, distributed between the parties in accordance with the general principles of civil procedure and in the case of an appeal litigation, the defendant who asserts the legitimacy of the disposition concerned has the burden of proving the legitimacy of the disposition. If the defendant proves that the legitimacy of the disposition concerned can be reasonably acceptable, the disposition shall be justified, and the arguments and proof contrary thereto shall return to the plaintiff, who is the other party (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu124, Jul. 24, 1984).

In the instant case, as seen earlier, the OO on the register of the instant land stated that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land from the Plaintiff on March 24, 2010, and no evidence was submitted as to the fact that the time of transfer was 2009 or that it was transferred against the Plaintiff’s will. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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