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

A. On Aug. 5, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired and possessed two parcels, other than 000-00 m20,000 m2, and transferred all of them to KimA on Feb. 6, 2007.

B. On April 30, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a tax base return on capital gains by calculating the transfer value as the land for business use, and calculating the transfer value as KRW 3.2 billion, and the acquisition value as KRW 2.67 billion.

C. On September 15, 2009, the Defendant deemed that the instant land constitutes non-business land, and imposed capital gains tax amounting to 234,071,070 won in 207, which applied 60% of the tax rate of non-business land to the tax base (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection on December 14, 2009 with the Tax Tribunal on May 7, 2010, but was dismissed on December 29, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 12, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, and 6-1, 2, and 6

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Of the instant land, 5,620 square meters of 5,620 square meters were cultivated by Australia, and there was no objection to regard it as land for non-business use because the Plaintiff did not cultivate ginseng by itself, but the remaining 4.965 square meters of 4.965 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "land for non-business use") were operated as orchard and cultivated by the Plaintiff himself, and the instant disposition in which the heavy tax rate (60% of the tax base of transfer income) is applied is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The key issue of this case is whether the land of this case constitutes a non-business land under Article 104-3 (1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same), and whether the plaintiff has "self-defence" under Article 168-8 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618 of Feb. 22, 2008), Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Farmland Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618 of Feb. 22, 2008).

In light of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 2 and 3-1 through 6, and 4-1 through 4 of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3-4, the defendant conducted an on-site investigation on the land of this case on or around May 2009, and the previous owner KimCC leased the remainder of the land as a 1/3 of the above land from neighboring residents as a safy field and cultivated it as a safy, without removing and cultivating all safy trees in the orchard after the plaintiff acquired the above land, and the plaintiff possessed without cultivating all safy trees in the orchard. The plaintiff's statement to the effect that the real estate business is famous as a old person in the vicinity of the PP area. Since around 203, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the plaintiff had been operating real estate brokerage business and gaining considerable income from the land of this case on or around Sep. 1, 2006.

3. Conclusion

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