2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

A. On April 4, 2003, the Plaintiff purchased 1,805 square meters in ○○○○-do, ○○○○-do, 313-2 square meters in 1,805 square meters in 313-3 square meters in ri, 313-4 square meters in ri, 269 square meters in ri, and 585 square meters in ri, hereinafter referred to as “previous farmland”). The previous farmland was completed on January 23, 2007 (as of January 20, 2007).

B. On October 1, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired △△-ri 1140-3 2,770.3 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "alternative farming land"), and completed registration in its name on October 5, 2007. < Amended by Act No. 8573, Oct. 5, 2007>

C. On June 2, 2008, the Plaintiff applied for reduction of capital gains tax of KRW 67,406,400 on the previous farmland to the Defendant on June 2, 2008, on the ground that the acquisition of substitute farmland constitutes substitute farmland.

D. On February 5, 2009, the Defendant deemed that it does not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax due to substitute land for farmland, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of KRW 141,613,640 for the capital gains tax reverted to year 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On May 11, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition, but was dismissed. In other words, on September 29, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on February 8, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 8, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each natural disaster No. 1), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff principal

The Plaintiff had resided in the previous farmland (including adjoining land; hereinafter the same shall apply) for more than three years, such as acquiring farmland and cultivating rice in the previous farmland for more than three years, and acquired and cultivated a substitute farmland within one year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland. As such, the income from the transfer of farmland in the previous farmland is subject to reduction and exemption of transfer income tax due to the substitute land for farmland under Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, notwithstanding the fact that the transfer income from the transfer of farmland in the previous farmland is subject to reduction and exemption of transfer

B. Key statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 921 of Jan. 1, 2010) and Article 67(1), (2), and (3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620 of Feb. 22, 2008), where a person who has resided in the former location of farmland for not less than three years and cultivated the farmland while residing in a new location of farmland for not less than three years after acquiring another farmland within one year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland, and where the area of new acquired farmland exceeds 1/2 of the area of farmland to be transferred or exceeds 1/3 of the value of transferred farmland, a tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax on capital gains accruing from substitute land of farmland shall be reduced or exempted.

2) The purport of the provision that reduces capital gains tax on the substitute land of farmland under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is to protect a self-employed farmer and encourage agriculture by guaranteeing free substitution of farmland. Therefore, the subject of reduction or exemption shall be construed to limit the cases where the farmland acquired by the self-employed farmer and cultivated is to be substituted for the purpose of cultivation.

Therefore, the requirements for reduction of capital gains tax due to substitute land for farmland should be farmland. ① The previous land and new land should be cultivated directly while residing in the previous land location for more than 23 years and residing in the new land location for more than 3 years. ③ The residence and cultivation should begin within 1 year from the date of transfer of the previous land. ④ The period between the transfer date of the previous land and the acquisition date of the newly acquired land should be within 1 year, and ④ the area of the newly acquired farmland should be 1/2 or more of the area of the transferred farmland and the value of the transferred farmland should be 1/3 or more.

In addition, the term "direct cultivation" means that a resident engages in the cultivation of the crops or the growing of perennial plants in his own farmland at all times (in the location and location of the farmer and farmland, in the vicinity of time) or who cultivates or cultivates not less than half of the farming work with his own labor (in the direct labor force of the farmer).

In addition, in order for the Plaintiff to have the capital gains tax on income generated from the substitute land of farmland reduced or exempted due to the necessity for cultivation, the Plaintiff’s assertion above ② must prove all of the requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu11893, Jul. 13, 1993).

3) We examine whether the Plaintiff was proved to have cultivated the previous farmland directly in this case, while residing in the previous location of the farmland for not less than three years, which is the requirement of the above ②.

A) Facts that part of the plaintiff's assertion was combined or glassed, etc.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 5 (including each number), and witness B's testimony, the following facts, etc. can be acknowledged:

① On December 29, 1997, the farmland ledger first prepared on December 29, 1997, states that the Plaintiff is self-fluence of the previous farmland. ② The Plaintiff resides in the Si/Gun/Gu 1019-174, △△△△△, △△△△, which is adjacent to the previous farmland location, and is the 19.95 km straight line from the previous farmland to the Plaintiff’s domicile. ③ The details of sales by each trader in the △△△△△, which are indicated as supplying considerable amount of agricultural chemicals and fertilizers to the Plaintiff. ④ The Now, thisCC, 0D, YE, and YF prepared a confirmation document to the effect that “the Plaintiff cultivated the previous farmland directly by the Plaintiff.”

B) Facts that the plaintiff's petition is not inconsistent with or was not inconsistent with the plaintiff's petition

On the other hand, however, the following facts are also acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (including each number), and witnessB's testimony, as a whole, the whole purport of the pleadings.

① 이CC은 2005년부터 2006년까지 종전 농지를 경작하였음을 근거로 행정관청에 쌀소득등보전직접지불금(이하 '쌀직불금'이라 한다)을 신청하여 지급받았다. ② 이CC은 쌀직불금을 지급받기 위해서 종전 농지 소재지 마을이장으로부터 경작확인을 받았다.③ 이CC이 최초로 작성한 2008. 11. 30.자 진술서에는 자신이 종전 농지를 20년 이상 경작하였다는 사실 이외에 원고의 자경사실은 기재되어 있지 아니하다.④ 원고는 처음에는 과세관청 직원에게 이CC을 모르는 사람이라고 진술하였다가, 후에 이를 번복하였다.⑤ 원고는 이 사건 처분 이후인 2009. 5. 12. 이CC을 쌀직불금 부당수령사실로 △△경찰서에 고소하였으나 특별한 이유 없이 1개월도 경과하지 아니하여 취하하였을 뿐만 아니라 고소장에도 '원고가 종전 농지를 자경하였다'는 주장은 기재되어 있지 아니하다.⑥ 원고는 2000. 5. 1.부터 현재까지 주거지에서 '♤♤농장'이라는 상호로 수경식물, 화훼 재배업에 종사하고 있고 △△시 화훼연합회의 감사직을 맡고 있다.

(c) small decision;

In addition, the fact that the Plaintiff, an agricultural business entity, was unable to fully recognize the fact that the Plaintiff received subsidies for the farmland that he / she saw, by obtaining confirmation from the village head over two years, was unable to easily employ the Plaintiff’s testimony as evidence of direct cultivation (a half or more of regular work or farming work by her own labor force) of the Plaintiff’s previous farmland for not less than three years, and the fact that the above recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff, who bears the burden of proof, proves all the above requirements (a three or more years of self-certification). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the above requirements are proved by all the above requirements is without merit, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim for objection case is dismissed because there is no reason to set the law.