2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

A. On January 20, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired and held ○○○○○○○○, ○○○, 697-5, 1983 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and the daily price for the said land was included in the site for the housing site development project, and the △△△, a project implementer, acquired the ownership of the instant land on November 4, 2004.

B. On January 28, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased 000 m245-1 ○○○○, ○○, ○○○-si 245-1 m2, 1603 m2, and 1603 m2, 246-4 m2, and on the instant land, the Plaintiff filed a non-taxation report on capital gains tax on the grounds that the instant land is a substitute farmland for farmland under Article

다. ☐☐지방국세청장은 2007. 10. 5. 피고에 대한 감사결과, △△사가 이 사건 토지를 수용하면서 그 지장물보상금 12,464,317원, 실영농보상금 2,930,319원 전부를 이AA에게 지급하는 등 이 사건 토지는 원고가 경작 상 필요에 의하여 소유하면서 자경을 하고 있던 농지가 아니라 타인에게 임대한 토지에 해당한다는 이유로 원고로부터 양도소득세를 추정할 것을 피고에게 지시하였고 피고는 위 지시에 따라 2008. 2. 1. 원고에게 2004년 귀속 양도소득세 126,765,475원을 경정ㆍ고지(이하, '이 사건 처분'이 라고 한다)하였다.

D. On April 11, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 11, 2008. However, after receiving a decision of dismissal on July 21, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an appeal on October 18, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 5 evidence, Eul 6 and 7 evidence (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The plaintiff's principal

The plaintiff acquired the land of this case on January 20, 1997 and rented part of this case to thisA around the end of 2002. The remaining part of the land has been continuously cultivated by the time of expropriation, so long as the plaintiff continued to do so by the time of expropriation, the plaintiff should be subject to the non-taxation provisions of capital gains tax due to substitute farmland under the Income Tax Act, and the disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff is not a self-employed farmer is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to the Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it provides that no capital gains tax shall be imposed on farmland substituted by necessity for cultivation. This is to protect farmers and promote the development and encouragement of agriculture by allowing and guaranteeing free substitution of farmland. In this case, the previous land and new acquired land shall be farmland, and at the time of the transfer of the previous land, the transferor shall be a person interested in the land, and at the time of the transfer of the previous land, a new land shall be acquired for the purpose of self-defense (Supreme Court Decision 95Nu3695 delivered on September 29, 195).

2) 원고가 이 사건 토지의 양도 당시 그 토지를 자경하고 있었는지에 관하여 본다. 을 9, 10, 12호층의 각 기재에 의하면, 원고는 1993년부터 2007년까지 ☐☐ ☐☐구 ☐☐동산230-30 소재 군인복지기금태릉체력단련장에서 조경사로서 근로를 제공하고 총 503,358,990원의 급여를 받은 사실, 수용으로 이 사건 토지의 소유권을 취득한 △△사는 이 사건 토지의 실제 경작자를 이AA로 보아 지장물 보상금 12,464,317원, 실영농보상금 2,930,319원을 이AA에게 지급한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고, 위 인정사실에 의하면 원고가 이 사건 토지의 양도 당시 그 토지를 자경하지 않았다고 봄이 상당하다(위 인정사실에 비추어 보면 원고의 주장에 부합하는 듯한 갑 8 내지 10호증의 각 기재, 증인 이AA의 증언은 믿기 어렵다).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further review as to whether the Plaintiff satisfies the remainder of non-taxation requirements of capital gains tax under Article 153(2) of the Enforcement Decree, capital gains from the transfer of the farmland of this case does not constitute non-taxation of capital gains tax. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.