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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 and special rural development tax for the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on November 1, 2010 shall be revoked.

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the statement on the details of the disposition of the second to third to fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the second to second to twenty of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act" as "the Restriction of Special Taxation Act" as "the details of the disposition of the second to third to fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance". Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether capital gains tax is reduced or exempted;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As of May 15, 2007, the maintenance of this case was maintained by the Korea Highway Corporation in combination with the maintenance of Wi-ri, 00-13 (hereinafter referred to as "related maintenance") and maintenance of 00-14 (hereinafter referred to as "the maintenance") in the land for public works that was acquired by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff as the land for public works. However, the maintenance of this case was first compensated only due to the circumstances of the Korea Highway Corporation, which is the main body of compensation, and the maintenance of this case was first compensated for the maintenance of this case, and was not used for the purpose of agriculture at the time of liquidation of the price for the maintenance of this case. Thus, the maintenance of this case was determined as to whether it falls under "farmland as of the date of transfer", which is the requirement of reduction or exemption of capital gains tax as stipulated in Article 69 (1) 1 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act,

Therefore, it should be determined according to whether the maintenance related to the first compensation first falls under farmland as of the date of transfer, rather than the date of actual payment for the maintenance of this case, and the defendant accepted the plaintiff's request for correction concerning related maintenance and refunded the reduced tax amount under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act to the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, after acquiring the instant real estate from May 15, 2007, owned the instant real estate for more than 40 years from the date of the transfer of related maintenance until the purchase by consultation with the Korea Land Corporation, used the instant maintenance for the purpose of supplying agricultural water to the Yri-ri farmland in Yri-si, the relevant Yri-si area through a waterway connected to the Gyeongnam-si, a mountain village, through which the maintenance of the instant case was passed through the Gyeong-do Highway, and cultivated the instant paddy field directly for more than eight years

Therefore, since the real estate of this case constitutes "self-farmland for not less than 8 years" under Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the transfer income tax on such real estate should be reduced or exempted, notwithstanding that the defendant's imposition of the transfer income tax not reduced or exempted to the plaintiff is a disposition inconsistent with the preceding administrative acts for the same taxable object, and thus contravenes the principle of trust in administration or the principle of self-regulation, and also violates the principle of substantial taxation

B. The base date for determining whether farmland is farmland

(1) The land for which the transfer income tax may be reduced or exempted under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which was enforced at the time of the acquisition by consultation on the instant real estate, and Article 66(1), (4), (5) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, shall be farmland which is subject to the taxation of agricultural income tax as of the date of transfer, and which is directly cultivated by the resident prescribed by

In addition, the transfer date which forms the basis for determining farmland shall be the date of settlement of the price in principle in accordance with the provisions of Article 66 (5) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 162 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act which was enforced at the time of the acquisition of the real estate in this case, but if the date of settlement is unclear, it shall be the date of receipt of registration or change of entry

However, the principle of no taxation without law is a requirement for taxation, or a requirement for tax exemption or exemption, and the interpretation of tax laws is to be interpreted as the legal text, barring any special circumstances, and it is not allowed to be expanded or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds, and in particular, it accords with the principle of fair taxation to strictly interpret the provisions that can be seen as clearly preferential provisions among the requirements for tax exemption or exemption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20090, Mar. 27, 1998).

(2) The reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is a preferential provision that reduces capital gains tax to a person who resided in a location of the farmland for at least eight years, and thus, its requirements should be strictly interpreted as above.

Therefore, the above reduction requirements shall be determined on the basis of the "farmland as of the date of transfer" as of January 28, 2008 under Article 66 (4) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act. In principle, the above transfer date refers to the date of the transfer of the farmland on which the transfer income tax is imposed. Thus, on the ground that there are circumstances that the maintenance of this case falls under the farmland as of the transfer date, it cannot be determined on the basis of the transfer date of the relevant maintenance that has been transferred for more than two years before the transfer date. Even if △△△ does not do so, the related maintenance was acquired through consultation with the Korea Highway Corporation for public works, and as seen thereafter, the pertinent public works were completed on January 28, 200 (No. 5-1) while the pertinent public works were completed on the other hand (No. 5-1) and only on July 11, 2008, the land of this case shall be determined on the basis of consultation about the land of this case 20 years since the transfer date of the project approval did not change.

Therefore, the issue of whether the instant real estate was farmland around May 15, 2007, which was the date of the transfer of related maintenance, is irrelevant to whether or not the capital gains tax on the instant real estate has been reduced or exempted. Therefore, on a different premise, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition of capital gains tax contradicts the preceding administrative acts on the same taxable object, which violates the administrative trust protection principle or the self-defense principle, and also goes against the principle of substantial taxation cannot be accepted.

C. Whether the maintenance of the instant case constitutes farmland as of September 24, 2009, the date of the transfer

(1) According to Article 27(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 2 subparag. 17 of the Farmland Act, Article 2 subparag. 17 of the Farmland Act, and Article 197 subparag. 8 of the Local Tax Act, farmland in this context is the land actually used for cultivating crops, etc. regardless of the land category on the cadastral record, such as paddy field, paddy field and orchard. It is interpreted that farmland includes farming shed, compost, pumping station, pumping station, branch office, concentration, waterway, etc. directly necessary for farmland management, and as such, the transferor must prove the facts constituting farmland (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 194).

(2) The Plaintiff alleged to the effect that the instant maintenance was a transferee directly required for farmland management at the time of the transfer, but the entry of No. 5, which seems consistent with this, is difficult to believe as a confirmation letter of interest to the instant disposition, and the entries or images of No. 6 through No. 8 (including the serial number) are insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(3) Meanwhile, the circumstances in which Gap’s evidence Nos. 8, 12, 14, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 2 through 5 (including paper numbers) were examined by considering the overall purport of the pleadings are as follows.

The maintenance of this case is adjacent to the west Highway, and there is a monarching area on the west Highway.

According to the aerial photography taken around May 200, the Corporation had already started to be created in the area adjacent to the east of the maintenance of this case, and there was a miscellaneous land in the south side, which appears to be a building and a miscellaneous land in the north side, and there was no farmland from the time of shooting.

- The evidence No. 8 (including a branch number) taken pictures of each of the farmland in the instant case and the underground water of the Jeng-ri area and the Gyeong-do Highway connected thereto, or the Plaintiff’s assertion, even if they were based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, they taken the current status around May 200, which is far earlier than the transfer date of this case. Thus, it is difficult to view that the above photographs alone were used as the transferee directly required for the farmland management even at the time of transfer.

According to the aerial photography taken around September 2006, at the time, the two establishments were installed in the fish farm in this case, and even until May 6, 2010, the two establishments were installed in the fish farm in this case, and there was a fry card in its surrounding areas, which read "the cryp of a reservoir in the fish farm", and the IC has reported inland fishing for operating fish farming from July 23, 2001 to July 22, 2009. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff installed the fish farm in appearance to prevent water pollution, but it is difficult to believe Gap evidence No. 3-2 and Gap evidence No. 5, which seem to comply with this, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise.

As a result of the local verification on May 6, 2010 and July 2, 2012 by public officials belonging to the defendant, the waterway installed in the maintenance of this case was combined with the OOF Corporation and was inappropriate for agricultural water, and the combined waterway was used for agricultural water as well as for agricultural water. It was not possible to confirm the fact that the combined waterway was used for agricultural water as an opposite part of the road, and that there was a waterway under the maintenance of this case.

- The farmland located in the Dog-ri region of the maintenance of the instant case was determined and publicly announced as the road zone on June 22, 2006, and was used from September 4, 2006 to May 28, 2007 through the land compensation for the owner of farmland, and at least from January 28, 2008, the farmland supplied with agricultural water from the maintenance of the instant case was entirely cut from the time of the point of view.

According to the evidence No. 14 (Evidence No. 14) of this case, most of the maintenance of this case are linked to the right-hand side of the related maintenance, and it can not be contacted with the mond farmland that is adjacent to the left-hand side of the related maintenance without going through related maintenance. The maintenance related to the maintenance of this case was acquired through consultation with the Korea Highway Corporation on May 15, 2007, which lost the function as a pumping-out, and as a result, it seems that the function as a pumping-out ground of the maintenance of this case was also lost.

(4) In light of the above overall circumstances, it is consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant maintenance was a transferee directly required for farmland management at the time of transfer, and thus, it is difficult to believe that the entry of No. 5, written by village residents, as well as the entries or images of No. 6 through No. 8, are insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

D. Whether the answer in this case was farmland at the time of September 24, 2009, which was the date of transfer

No evidence exists to acknowledge that the answer in this case was actually cultivated at the time of transfer, and instead, considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 2 as to the statement No. 2, the actual situation of the answer in this case at the time of transfer can only be recognized as a fact that it was a road other than farmland.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, since the real estate of this case does not fall under farmland at the time of transfer and does not fall under self-farmland for not less than 8 years under Article 69 (1) 9 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the imposition disposition of capital gains tax of this case is legitimate after excluding the reduction and exemption under the above provision.

3. Whether special rural development tax is levied.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the imposition of the transfer income tax of this case is illegal, the imposition of the special rural development tax of this case is also illegal.

B. Determination

(1) The instant disposition of imposition of capital gains tax is lawful as seen earlier.

(2) According to Article 2(1)1, Article 3 subparag. 1, and Article 5(1)10 of the Act on Special Rural Development, which was enforced at the time of transfer of the instant real estate, a person subject to reduction or exemption of income tax under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act bears the obligation to pay special rural development tax equivalent to the amount obtained by multiplying the reduced or exempted income tax by the tax rate of 20/100. On the other hand, Article 4 subparag. 2 subparag. 11 of the Act on Special Rural Development, Article 4(1)1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Rural Development, Article 77 and Article 69(1)12 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 66(5)14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 162 subparag. 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the issue of whether the pertinent land falls under the direct expropriation of the said land by the President as at the time of the transfer of the said real estate shall be determined as 9.

(3) However, as seen earlier, the instant real estate does not constitute farmland at the time of the transfer date, that is, the acquisition by consultation with the Korea Land Corporation, and eventually, the instant real estate does not constitute the subject of non-taxation of special rural development tax under Article 4 subparag. 2-18 of the Act on Special Rural Development Tax.

(4) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay 000 won special tax in agricultural fishing villages, which is calculated by adding 200 won to 100 won, which is calculated by applying 20/100 tax rate of 20% to 100 won of the tax amount for special rural development tax under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Special Rural Development, as a taxpayer of special rural development tax under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the same Act, who is a taxpayer of special rural development tax under Article 5, who is obligated to pay 000 won in addition to 00 won in agricultural fishing villages, special tax amount of 00 won ( 000 won + 000 won) calculated by adding 20/100 to 200 won in accordance with Article 5.19).

(5) Therefore, the Defendant’s imposition of special rural development tax of KRW 000 on the amount of capital gains tax to be reduced or exempted under Article 77(1)1 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is lawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.