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

The court's explanation on the instant case is with the exception of the following modifications:

Since the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

Nos. 20 to 3 of the Act shall be followed by the following:

C. Determination

1) Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015)

According to Paragraph (1) of this Article, Article 66 (1), (11) and (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015), in order for a heir to have the income tax on inherited farmland reduced or exempted, the heir shall have resided in a Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland in question is located, a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the land in question, or an area within 20 kilometers in a straight line from the farmland in question for at least one consecutive year and directly cultivated the relevant farmland for at least eight years, and the total cultivation period acquired and cultivated by the decedent shall be at least eight years. "Direct cultivation" means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing them with his/her own labor at least 1/2, or cultivating or cultivating them with his/her own labor (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Du21381, Sep. 31, 2010; Supreme Court en banc Decision 20131Du213161, Feb.

The burden of proving the fact of directly cultivating the transferred land as a requirement for the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on farmland is against a taxpayer who asserts the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 1994).

2) In the instant case, in light of the following circumstances that can be seen by adding the overall purport of the pleadings to the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 13, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including various numbers), there is not any evidence to acknowledge that the testimony of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 10, and evidence Nos. 15 through 18 (including each number number) submitted by the plaintiff, or witness AA of the first instance trial, was ordinarily engaged in the cultivation of crops or perennial plants on the instant land for more than one year from March 2013, or cultivated or cultivated by the plaintiff’s labor force for more than 1/2 of farming operations, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

A) The Plaintiff was living together with the Deceased at a place where 1km away from the original land of the instant case, and the Deceased was unable to live in a mixed life after his death, and his body is not good. As such, the Plaintiff was a director of the Plaintiff’s house located approximately 10km away from the land of the instant case.

B) According to the Plaintiff’s assertion that “around March 2013, the Plaintiff had been aged 76 years old and sold to son operating her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her hers her her her her

C) As to the fact that “after the death of the deceased, the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate and manage the Plaintiff’s children temporarily cultivated and managed the instant land”, the statements by neighboring residents of the instant land are mutually consistent. The above statements were made on November 1, 2014 before the Defendant directly cultivated the instant land by taking the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, and the credibility thereof is relatively high.

D) As seen earlier, considering the principle of no taxation without law and fair taxation, the fact that the Plaintiff cultivated with labor force of other children than the Plaintiff himself does not constitute “direct cultivation” that the Plaintiff could be subject to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

3. Conclusion

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

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