2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On January 7, 2002, 2002, the Plaintiffs: (a) donated part of part of the 1st m2 in FFdong 8th m2 in the EEth 2002 FFdong 7th 200m2 to 0m2 in the 3th m2th m2 in the FFdong FFdong 3th m2, EEth m2 (hereinafter “instant 2m2”); and (b) on January 9, 2012, Plaintiff KimA, KimB 2/7 in the FFdong 8th m2 before EEth m2, and Plaintiff KimB completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/7 share; and (c) on the 3rd m2/4th m2 in the E Eth m2, 2002 m2, Plaintiff KimCC completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 2/4 share (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).

B. On November 16, 2012, the Plaintiffs sold the instant land to GGGG Co., Ltd. for KRW 950,000,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer after selling the instant land for KRW 550,000,00, respectively.

C. Following the sale of each of the instant land, the Plaintiffs filed an application for tax reduction or exemption on the ground that they directly cultivated each of the instant land for at least eight years based on Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. However, on November 13, 2013, the Defendant did not recognize the Plaintiffs’ above application for reduction or exemption, and instead, notified Plaintiff KimB of the transfer income tax of 80,570,930 won for the transfer income tax corresponding to the year 2012, December 6, 2013, KRW 49,413,840 for the transfer income tax corresponding to the year 2012, and KRW 117,553,500 for the transfer income tax corresponding to the year 2012 to Plaintiff KimCC on December 3, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On January 28, 2014, the Plaintiffs dissatisfied with the Defendant’s instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 28, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim on June 10, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, and Gap evidence 3-1 through 3

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs directly cultivated each land of this case for not less than 8 years. The crops cultivated by the Plaintiffs are short of the growing time, the Plaintiffs’ vocational characteristics were sufficient to secure the time due to the Plaintiffs’ occupation, and the Plaintiffs were sufficiently able to recognize that they own each of the above lands, such as purchasing farming materials, etc. directly by the Plaintiffs, but the Defendant did not accept this and made the instant disposition. Therefore, the instant

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) 원고 김AA는 1985. 9. 1.부터 현재까지 HHHH공사 JJ지역본부 운영단 KKKK팀에서 근무하고 있고, 원고 김BB은 1990. 12. 26.부터 현재까지 JJ시청 소속 공무원으로 근무하고 있다. 또한 원고 김CC은 1994. 5. 26.부터 2005. 6. 15.까지는 JJ일보, LL상사, OO관광 주식회사 등에서, 2007. 6. 15.부터 현재까지는 PP닷컴에서 근무하거나 QQQQQ생명보험 주식회사, RRRRRR 주식회사 소속 보험설계사로 근무하고 있다.

2) As above, Plaintiff KimA served in the KK Team at HH HH JW J Headquarters’s KK team, and had an annual average of KRW 632,914,392 from around 2001 to around 2012, and KRW 52,742,866. Plaintiff KimB had earned income of KRW 51,74,60 in total from around 2001 to around 2012, while serving as a public official belonging to the JK. Plaintiff KimB earned earned income of KRW 42,645,383 in total from KRW 801,676,530 in total, annual average of KRW 66,086,37 in total, annual average of KRW 377 from around 201 to December 2012.

3) According to the sales performance by each customer of the purchasing businesses issued by JJ-si TT branch, Plaintiff KimA confirmed the details of purchasing pesticides equivalent to KRW 94,947 in 2010, KRW 21,500 in 2011, KRW 29,000 in agricultural chemicals, fertilizers, and agricultural machinery accessories in 2012, and Plaintiff KimCC confirmed the details of purchasing pesticides and fertilizers equivalent to KRW 21,500 in 201, KRW 29,000 in 201, and KRW 29,000 in 2012.

4) The representative director of J-entrusted farming limited company, the representative director of J-entrusted KimS appeared as a witness in the confirmation document prepared by him and this court, and at the request of the plaintiffs who cultivate Bori and bean, etc. in each of the instant lands, and lent machinery to dry field and spathn spathn spathn spathn spathn spathn spathn, and harvested material was purchased by KimS and sold to Agricultural Cooperative under his own name. According to the inquiry into the purchase details and purchase details of grain for each farm household issued by the NA branch in JJ-Si, J-si, 208 to the 44,911,400 won in total, from January 1, 2005 to December 27, 2013, the details of 206,826,75 won in total, such as spathn / raw materials sold.

5) The distance from the residence of Plaintiff KimA and KimCC to the instant land is about 2. XXkm, and the driving time of the automobile appears to have been about 7 minutes. Moreover, the distance from the residence of Plaintiff KimB to the instant land is about 6. XXkm, and the driving time of the automobile is about 25 minutes.

6) The Plaintiff KimA has the farmland ledger among the land No. 1 of this case and the land No. 1 of 1,182 and 600 square meters among the land No. 2. Plaintiff KimB has the farmland ledger among the land No. 1 of this case and the land No. 591 square meters and 1,200 square meters among the land No. 2 of this case. Plaintiff KimCC has the farmland ledger among the land No. 2 of this case. The Plaintiff KimCC has the farmland ledger as to the land No. 1,200 square meters among the land No. 2 of this case. According to the result of the fact inquiry by Ji-si, Jisi, Ji-si, the competent court: (a) ascertaining whether the applicant prepared an application for fact inquiry as to the general status, farmland status, etc.; (b) prepare the farmland ledger and, upon request of the person who wishes to peruse

7) On January 31, 1983, Plaintiff KimA and KimCC joined the agricultural cooperatives as members, and paid the Plaintiff KimA 3,054, the Plaintiff KimA 3,054, the capital-level (number of shares: 61X), the Plaintiff KimCC 4,969, and the capital-level (number of shares: 9X shares).

[Reasons for Recognition] A’s 3-1, 3, 4-1 through 4, 6-1, 2, 8-1, 2, 9-1, 2, 10 through 13, 10-1, 16, 17-1, 7, some of the statements and images of Gap’s 3-1, 3-4, 4-1, 6-2, 9-2, 10 through 13, 10-7, 7, witness KimS, and original W’s testimony, the result of the fact-finding conducted by the court of JUU Dong, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a result of the fact-finding

D. Determination

1) Changes in the capital gains tax reduction and exemption system for self-Cultivating farmland

A) The capital gains tax exemption system for a self-employed farmer was first enacted on December 24, 1974 under Article 5 subparag. 6 (d) of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 2705, Dec. 24, 1974). The said Income Tax Act only provides for a self-employed period of eight years as the requirements for capital gains tax exemption, and did not stipulate any other requirements for residence exemption. Accordingly, both capital gains tax was exempted for self-employed farmland for eight years or more

B) After December 26, 198, Article 5 subparag. 6 (d) of the Income Tax Act was amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 198, and Article 5 subparag. 6 (d) of the Income Tax Act continuously for not less than eight years, the delegation provision provides that capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted on the income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the land cultivated by himself, and Article 14(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12564 of Dec. 31, 1988) excludes farmland (title 1) as of the date of transfer, one year has passed from the date of incorporation into the residential, commercial and industrial areas, and one year has passed from the date of designation of

C) After December 31, 1993, Article 55 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4666, Dec. 31, 1993) was amended. The entire amendment, in order to enhance the fairness and neutrality of taxation and to restore the function as income taxation, was exempted from transfer tax in the previous farmland for more than eight years, but the previous limit of transfer tax reduction and exemption should be applied accordingly. In addition, Article 5(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 1584, Dec. 14, 1993) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 2577, Apr. 14, 1993) provides for the exemption of transfer income tax or special surtax on the land which is directly cultivated by the resident or farming association (including the land subject to exemption, reduction and exemption, and small collection) prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 251, Feb. 1, 1993).

D) As the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act was wholly amended by Act No. 5584 on December 28, 1998, Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act was stipulated in the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and accordingly, the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act was amended by Act No. 6538 on December 29, 2001, and accordingly, the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 17458 on December 31, 2001, and the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 17458 on December 31, 201, but was residing in the location at the time of the commencement of the cultivation, but it did not fall under the location due

E) Since the amendment of the above provision was made on January 1, 2010 by Act No. 9921, the above provision has been amended several times, but its content has been maintained until now without any big change.

2) In light of the structure and contents of the provision on reduction and exemption of capital gains tax for self-employed farmland as seen above, the legislative purpose of the system is to reduce the tax burden following the transfer of farmland as part of the land farming policy, to prevent the external farmland speculation for not less than 8 years, and to revitalize agriculture and rural communities by reducing the tax burden of self-employed farmers for not less than 8 years (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2002Hun-Ba2, Sept. 19, 2002). However, it is justifiable in light of Article 123(1) of the Constitution that provides for protection of and support for agriculture (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2002Hun-Ba2, Sept. 19, 202). Such preferential measures are against the principle of tax equality and to reduce it as much as possible, and to expand the scope thereof should be exceptionally permitted within extremely limited scope (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 200Hun-Ba36, Sep. 26, 20029).

3) In light of the history, structure, and contents of the relevant regulations that reduced the scope of reduction and exemption of capital gains tax on self-employed farmland, and the necessity of strictly interpreting the preferential measures for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax, etc., even if a person engaged in a direct farming concurrently engages in another occupation, he/she shall be deemed a self-employed farmer as mentioned above. However, if he/she indirectly engages in agriculture while he/she concentrates on another occupation, he/she shall not be deemed a self-employed farmer if he/she is merely engaged in agriculture in an indirect manner (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du9271, Sept. 22, 1998).

4) 그런데 원고 김AA는 1985. 9. 1.부터 현재까지 HHHH공사 JJ지역본부 운영단 KKKK팀에서 근무하고 있고, 원고 김BB은 1990. 12. 26.부터 현재까지 JJ시청 소속 공무원으로 근무하고 있으며 원고 김CC은 1994. 5. 26.부터 2005. 6. 15.까지는 JJ일보에서, 2007. 6. 15.부터 현재까지는 QQQQQ생명보험 주식회사 소속 보험설계사로 근무하고 있었던 사실, 원고들은 위와 같이 각자 자신의 본업에 종사하면서 상당한 정도의 근로수입이 있었던 사실은 앞서 인정한 바와 같고, 여기에 원고들 역시 자신들이 본업을 가지면서 퇴근 후나 주말에 부업으로 이 사건 토지를 경작하였음을 인정하고 있음을 종합하여 보면 원고들은 모두 다른 직업에 전념하면서 농업을 간접적으로 경영하고 있는 것으로 보는 것이 합리적이다. 따라서 원고들은 자경농지에 대한 양도소득세 감면 규정의 적용을 받는 자경농민에 해당하지 않는다.

5) Family judgment

A) Even if there is room for the Plaintiffs to be a self-employed farmer subject to the provisions on reduction and exemption of capital gains tax for self-Cultivating farmland, it is difficult to view the Plaintiffs as self-employed in the instant land for the following reasons, and there is no other evidence to

B) The fact that the transferor of the transferred land has to actively prove the fact that the transferor has actively asserted it, and the fact that the transferred land has been used as farmland for not less than eight years is recognized, and thus, it is not presumed that the transferor has self-defensive facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 194).

C) According to the above facts, the following circumstances are revealed.

① As seen earlier, the Plaintiffs had their own principal business as seen earlier, and thereby, had earned a considerable amount of earned income or business income. Considering the amount of time and effort that the Plaintiffs invested in order to obtain wage and salary income or business income from their own occupation, it would not have been easy for the Plaintiffs to cultivate the instant land in a considerable area while maintaining this business ( Plaintiff KimA, Plaintiff Kim Young-B, Plaintiff KimB, and Plaintiff KimCC, Plaintiff Kim 2,382 square meters of land).

② As to this, the Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that, based on their respective cultivated areas, the annual time for farming operations, time for farming operations by crops, etc., the Plaintiffs were sufficiently able to cultivate after leaving work or weekends. However, the Plaintiffs did not verify objectivity of the materials used in the above calculation. In addition, in light of the absence of any materials to verify the details, intensity, time of work, etc. assigned to the Plaintiffs in this occupation, the mere time for farming operations by crops cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiffs could have been engaged in the above farming operations unless the Plaintiffs interfere with the main business.

③ According to the sales performance by each customer of the purchasing enterprises issued by the NAT branch in JJ, Plaintiff KimA confirmed the details of purchasing agricultural chemicals equivalent to KRW 94,947 in 2010, KRW 21,500 in 2011, KRW 29,000 in agricultural chemicals, fertilizers, and agricultural machinery accessories. Plaintiff KimCC confirmed the details of purchasing agricultural chemicals and fertilizers equivalent to KRW 21,500 in 201, KRW 29,000 in 201, and KRW 29,000 in 200 in 2012. Such details of purchase are insufficient to cultivate the instant land for at least eight years.

④ As to this, the Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that they purchased fertilizers upon the request of KimS, and that they were engaged in lending agricultural materials, and that KimS also stated to the same purport. However, there was no objective evidence to verify the details of the above transactions between the Plaintiffs and KimS. Moreover, as seen earlier, Plaintiff KimA and KimCC could have purchased fertilizers from Nonghyup as a member of the agricultural cooperative, or borrowed agricultural materials. The Plaintiffs did not easily obtain the reasons for purchasing fertilizers from KimS or borrowing agricultural materials from the agricultural cooperative, while excluding the agricultural cooperative, (a) the reasons for the purchase of fertilizers from KimS or borrowing of agricultural materials is not easy (only if the reasons for the purchase are due to the fact that KimS cultivated a considerable portion of the instant land by using the above agricultural materials, another question is raised that the Plaintiffs’ direct cultivation of the said land is appropriate).

⑤ Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that Plaintiff KimA and KimCC were members of agricultural cooperatives, and the Plaintiffs owned the farmland ledger for each of the instant land. Therefore, the Plaintiffs did not confirm whether there was a procedure to examine or confirm whether they own farmland in the course of entering the NAA or the establishment of the farmland ledger. However, insofar as it is not confirmed whether there was a procedure to examine or confirm whether they own farmland in the process of entering the NAA or the establishment of the farmland ledger, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiffs paid the land to the Plaintiff solely on the ground that the Plaintiffs were members of the NA or the farmland ledger (i.e., the Plaintiff’s investigating officials, who were affiliated with the Defendant in the process of the tax adjudication by the Tax Tribunal, confirmed in Ji-si, the Plaintiff KimA and KimCC

6) Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.