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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000 on September 2, 2013 against the Plaintiff on September 2, 2013 is revoked.

(a) Acquisition of ownership and investment in kind;

1) On August 24, 1994, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance by agreement and division made on February 14, 1993 with respect to the real estate of 00 o0 o,00 o,000 o,000 o,000 o,000 o,00 o,00 o,00 o,00.

2) On April 11, 2011, an agricultural corporation AA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) was a corporation established for the purpose of distributing, processing, and selling agricultural products, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant real estate to the non-party company on December 16, 2011 due to investment in kind on October 18, 201.

(b) Application for exemption from transfer income tax;

On February 28, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for exemption from capital gains tax pursuant to Article 68(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) along with the scheduled return of capital gains tax due to investment in kind in the instant real estate to the Defendant.

(c) Imposition of capital gains tax;

As a result of an on-site investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, the Defendant denied the application for exemption on the ground that the Plaintiff does not fall under a farmer as prescribed by Article 68(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the Nonparty Company did not meet the requirements for an agricultural corporation as prescribed by the Farmland Act. On September 2, 2013, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00 (including additional tax) of the transfer income tax for the year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(d) Requests for examination and results thereof;

The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on March 26, 2014 after filing an objection on November 29, 2013, but was dismissed on June 24, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1's entries, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

At the time of investment in kind, the Plaintiff was a farmer under Article 68 (2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the non-party company was also an agricultural corporation under the Farmland Act, and thus the capital gains tax on the income accrued from the investment in kind should be exempted. However, the Defendant’s disposition

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to the relevant laws and regulations, in order to be exempted from capital gains tax due to investment in kind of farmland pursuant to Article 68(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, a person making an investment in kind first should have resided within 20 kilometers from the farmland subject to investment in kind as a farmer under Article 3 subparag. 2(a) of the former Framework Act on Agriculture, Fisheries, Rural Community and Food Business (amended by Act No. 11694, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same) and directly cultivated

2) Therefore, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s direct cultivation of the instant real estate does not appear in light of the following: (a) whether the Plaintiff constitutes a farmer as prescribed by Article 68(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act; and (b) the Plaintiff’s statement as to whether the Plaintiff constitutes a farmer as prescribed by Article 68(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the statement as to the Plaintiff’s statement as to whether it is insufficient to acknowledge it; (c) there

Before and after the establishment of the non-party company and the contribution in kind of the real estate in this case, the plaintiff completed the move-in report as shown below. In light of the fact that the plaintiff continued to work as a taxi engineer at the BB limited partnership located from June 2, 2007 to March 31, 201, ② from November 6, 2011 to April 23, 2012, from 00 to April 23, 2012, the plaintiff continued to work as a taxi engineer at the BB limited partnership located from 00 to 00 Dong 00,000, and DD and EE, which are the spouse of the plaintiff, still resided at 00 hours during the period when the plaintiff completed the move-in report for resident registration at 00,000, although the plaintiff completed the move-in report for resident registration at 00.

Resident registration date of resident registration transfer report date

1. March 30, 200 00 Dong 00 000

2 April 21, 201 00, 00 Dong 000

3. December 2, 201 00, 00 Dong 000

○ The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff is a farmer as stipulated in Article 68(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, because the Plaintiff stated the instant real estate as the Plaintiff’s own cultivation in the farmland ledger, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have cultivated the instant real estate directly solely on the ground that the farmland ledger is merely an administrative document prepared for the efficient utilization and management of farmland, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

From the filing of the lawsuit to the time of the closing of argument, the Plaintiff could not at all assert and prove the kinds, yield, cultivation period, the purchase details of agricultural products necessary for farming, the number of persons required for cultivating crops, the sales or consumption details of agricultural products, etc. cultivated from the instant real estate.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case based on the premise that the Plaintiff did not constitute a farmer as prescribed by Article 68(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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