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

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows 2-A of the judgment of the court of first instance

-1) As to the part of the first instance court's judgment, the contents of the first instance court's 7th to 12th 8th 4th 1th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 3th 3th 4th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 8th 8th 2th 2th 2th 3th 3th 4th 4th 6th 6th 4th 4th 6th 4th 7th 7th 7th 10

2. Parts used or added;

A. The part to be dried

1) The Plaintiff sent a female life with friend friend friend and friend friend friend.

In order to acquire each farmland of this case, from 204 to 204, the company of this case acquired farmland of this case, etc., and started to live together with YB in the housing of this case, and started to work as rice shed in each farmland of this case. The plaintiff owned a large number of farming organizations and directly performed the farming work, but employed only the farming machine and warehouse management, and the remaining straw, etc. (limited to 0 million won since 00,000 won was old since 10,000 won was paid from the company of this case, but the company of this case was actually operated by Ga KimD, and the plaintiff was in the role of attracting customers to work for more than twice a week, and therefore, the plaintiff had to work for more than 20,000 won for agricultural crops and work for more than 15,000 won for agricultural crops and work for more than 10,000 won for more than 25,000 won for agricultural crops and work for more than 15,000 won for agricultural crops.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff had resided in the instant house since around 2004 and had been directly cultivated each of the above farmland. Accordingly, the Defendant’s instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise.

2) Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which provides for the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on substitute land for farmland, provides that "income accruing from substitute land for farmland which is owned by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of farmland and is prescribed by Presidential Decree due to necessity for cultivation shall be reduced by 100/100 of capital gains tax." Accordingly, Article 67(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012) provides for the meaning of "resident prescribed by Presidential Decree" under Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and Article 70(3) of the same Act provides for the meaning of "farmland falling under such cases as prescribed by Presidential Decree" under Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and Article 70(2) of the same Act provides for the meaning of "direct cultivation of farmland which is owned by the resident or the plaintiff who is regularly engaged in cultivation of farmland."

B. Additional parts

⑧ 원고가 주장하는 순번 제2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15번 기재 토지에서 실제로 벼농사가 이루어졌다는 점을 인정할 증거가 없는 점, ⑨ 원고는 쌀소득 등 보전 직접지불금을 지급받았으므로 위 각 토지에서 벼농사를 직접 경작하였다고 주장하나, 논농업 자체의 보호와 농업인 등의 소득안정 등을 주된 입법 목적으로 하고 '직접 경작'을 쌀소득 등 보전 직접지불금 지급 요건으로 요구하고 있지 아니한 쌀소득 등의 보전에 관한 법률이 정하는 위 직접지불금이 지급되었다고 하더라도 '직접 경작'이 추정될 수는 없는 점, ⑩ 원고가 위 각 토지에서 벼농사를 직접 경작하였다고 주장하며 제출한 직불금신청서 조회화면(갑 제23호증의 1 내지 4) 및 개인별수매내역조회(갑 제25호증)에 의하면, 쌀소득 등 보전 직접지불금 지급대상 농지에 원고가 주장하는 위 각 토지 전부가 포함되지는 않고, 원고와 ㅁㅁㅁ생명조합공동사업법인 사이에 2008년 및 2010년에만 쌀 수매가 이루어진 점

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is with this conclusion.

Since the plaintiff's appeal is legitimate, it is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.