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

A. On September 5, 1995, the Plaintiff purchased 37 m2,281 m2,281 m2, and 1,577 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000,000,000 m2,000 m2,00,00

B. On February 26, 2008, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax to the Defendant on the condition that the farmland in this case was directly cultivated for not less than eight years and constitutes the reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax.

C. On January 1, 2009, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 175,327,570 of the transfer income tax reverted to the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be recognized as having cultivated the farmland directly (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 19, 2009, but was dismissed on June 4, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff principal

Since the farmland of this case had been resided in the farmland of this case for not less than 8 years and had been cultivated directly, it does not recognize the plaintiff's residence and direct cultivation.

It should be recognized that the transferor has cultivated directly for not less than 8 years from the time of acquisition of the relevant land to the time of transfer, and the "direct cultivation" means that the transferor is engaged in cultivating the crops or growing perennial plants on his own farmland at all times, or cultivating or cultivating not less than 1/2 of the farming work with his own labor.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the above provisions, “direct farming” is the concept of realizing the legislative purpose to protect or encourage farmland owners’ leading cultivation.

3) In order to recognize such "direct cultivation" as above, it is necessary to place and place the farmland with the farmer, to have the direct work in the vicinity of time (on a regular basis) or to have the farmer's own work (on a half or more own work).

4) In this case, we examine whether the Plaintiff was engaged in direct cultivation in the farmland of this case, namely, in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants in the farmland of this case at least 1/2 of the farming work with his own labor, or cultivated or cultivated with her own labor.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20, and 21 (including various numbers), and witness JCC's testimony, the following facts may be acknowledged:

① On November 9, 191, the Plaintiff completed the move-in report with 592-1, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the neighboring farmland of this case. On January 9, 1993, the Plaintiff transferred his/her resident registration to 44-3 large-101 in the same Eup/Myeon, but again transferred his/her resident registration to 592-1 in the same Eup/Myeon-ri 592 from January 2, 200 to May 23, 2005. ② According to the farmland ledger, the Plaintiff purchased the farmland of this case from 190 to 2003, 190 to 190, 200, 200, 195, 200, 200, 200, 197, 20, 30, 19, 20, 20, 19, 20, 19, 20, 20, 20, 3.

On the other hand, the following facts are also acknowledged in full view of Gap's evidence Nos. 8, 9, 11, 18, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including various numbers), witness JCC's testimony, and the purport of the whole fact inquiry results with respect to the Central Headquarters of the National Health Insurance Corporation (the National Health Insurance Corporation).

① 원고의 처인 김PP과 자인 조QQ는 1996. 4. 20.부터 2005. 8. 12. 원고와 세대합가를 이룰 때까지 계속해서 안산시에 주민등록이 되어 있다. ② 원고는 1998. 3. 30.부터 1999. 2. 27.까지는 안산시 단원구 RR동 779-7 소재 (주)TT전기의 이사로, 1999. 2. 28.부터 2004. 3. 10.까지는 위 회사의 대표이사로 각 등재되어 있다. ③ 원고는 1995년경부터 2004년경까지 위 회사로부터 근로소득이 발생한 것으로 신고 되어 있다. ④ 농지원부에 의하면, 원고는 이 사건 농지 중 1필지를 임대하였다. ⑤ 이 사건 농지 옆의 농지에서 농사를 짓는 주민인 송SS의 처는 '이 사건 농지는 2003년부터는 마을 주민인 송UU이 경작하였고, 그 이전에도 마을 주민이 경작하였다'는 취지로 진술하였다. ⑥ 원고가 제주도에 거주하면서 1년에 2-3회만 육지로 나왔다는 증인 진CC의 증언과는 달리 원고는 2000년 1월부터 2008년 10월까지 총 63일에 걸쳐 경기도나 인천에 소재한 병원ㆍ약국을 이용하였고, 제주도에 소재한 병원ㆍ약국을 이용한 자료는 없다. ⑦ 이 사건 농지에 대하여 매수인 김BB과의 매매계약은 원고가 아닌 진CC이 체결하였다.

In addition to the circumstances where the plaintiff himself/herself fails to submit objective and direct data, such as the details of the purchase of basic farming equipment, such as the insertion, improvement, and freezing, which are necessary for his/her direct cultivation of the farmland of this case, and the details of the sale of agricultural products, the evidence that conform to his/her residence and direct cultivation cannot be easily employed, and it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff resided in the farmland of this case for eight years in the location of the farmland of this case and directly cultivated the farmland of this case, and there is no other evidence to recognize this otherwise. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion premiseds that the plaintiff has cultivated the farmland of this case for eight years

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim for objection case is without merit.