Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation

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

A. On June 20, 2001, the Plaintiff owned 1,849m2 (hereinafter “the farmland of this case”) by donation from Park, who is her husband, from Park Jong-si on a 2001, the Plaintiff sold 00 won to KimB on May 6, 201, and did not report the transfer income tax.

B. On August 10, 201, the Defendant imposed a transfer income tax of 000 won on the Plaintiff for the year 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On August 19, 201, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on October 19, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

On September 5, 1974, the Plaintiff purchased the farmland of this case from KimCC, and registered in the husband’s name according to the custom at the time, and for about about 37 years, the farmland of this case directly cultivated the farmland of this case while residing in the Gmsan City, the location of the farmland of this case, for about 37 years, it constitutes an object of exemption from capital gains tax. The disposition of this case is unlawful.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. In order to have the capital gains tax reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010); Article 66(1)1 through 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 22583, Dec. 30, 2010), a Si/Gun/Gu in which the relevant farmland is located; a Si/Gun/Gu in a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the relevant farmland; or an area within 20km in a straight line from the relevant farmland should be cultivated directly.

B. Even if the Plaintiff purchased the instant farmland from KimCC on September 5, 1974, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as its owner before completing the registration of ownership transfer.

During the period from June 20, 201 to May 6, 201, when the Plaintiff registered as the owner of the farmland of this case, whether the farmland of this case was residing in the area of Gyeongsan-si located, in the area of Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to Gyeongsan-si, or in the area within 20 km from the farmland of this case, or in the area within 20 km from the farmland of this case, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that he resided in Gyeongsan-si, it is difficult to believe the Plaintiff’s assertion in light of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence No. 3 to No. 5 and the purport of the entire pleading, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without examining any further.

(1) The period during which the Plaintiff had his domicile on the resident registration in the XXri from March 2009 to January 19, 2010 from January 27, 2010 to September 16, 2010, the total of 18 months and 10 days from January 27, 2010 to September 16, 2010, and most of the remaining periods were 00-0 resident registration addresses of 3, 00, Daegu-gu Odong-dong, Odong-dong, and the above address had the Plaintiff’s domicile on the resident registration number of 0-0, while the Plaintiff’s children, who were disabled, have to look at. The straight line from the above address to the farmland of this case, is 32.67 km.

(2) From January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2009, the Plaintiff earned earned income of KRW 000 won each year while working in the Y-gu AAdong 000-0, Daegu Suwon-gu.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.