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

A. The Plaintiff acquired and transferred 14 lots of land located on both sides of Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant land”), and paid the transfer income tax for the year 2009 and the transfer income tax for the year 2010 to the Defendant as follows.

B. On March 16, 2010, the Plaintiff sought to the Defendant for the reduction and exemption of capital gains tax by applying the special long-term holding deduction to the Defendant on the ground that the transfer of the instant land was the land directly cultivated by himself. However, on May 18, 2010, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have cultivated the instant land directly (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On December 2, 2010, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on February 22, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 3

Statement, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff cultivated directly after acquiring the instant land, the instant land constitutes the land for business, and the instant disposition that did not apply the provision of special deduction for long-term holding of the land for business is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 95(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, capital gains shall be the amount calculated by deducting necessary expenses from the total amount of capital gains. The amount of special long-term holding deduction shall be the amount calculated by deducting the special long-term holding deduction amount from the amount of capital gains. The amount of special long-term holding deduction refers to the deduction of a certain amount from the holding of assets under Article 94(1)1. However, the special long-term holding deduction amount may not be deducted from the holding of assets subject to the tax rate under Article 104(1)4 through 10 of the Income Tax Act. According to Article 104-3(1) of the Income Tax Act, the term "non-business land" means land under Article 104(1)8 of the Income Tax Act includes farmland, the owner of which does not reside in the location of the farmland, or the farmland which is not cultivated by the owner of which he/she does not actually reside in the farmland or is located in the area where he/she does not own the farmland within 20 years after he/she does not cultivate or cultivate.

(2) In this case, we examine whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the special long-term holding deduction by satisfying the above re-villageing requirements and self-defense requirements with respect to the instant land.

(A) Whether the requirements of the village are met

In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s resident registration statement No. 4-1, the Plaintiff’s resident registration address can be recognized as the fact that the Plaintiff’s domicile was Kimpo-si, 00 BB village 000,000 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) from January 21, 2003 to the present date. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff actually resided in the apartment of this case, and the Plaintiff failed to meet the re-village requirements regarding the instant land. ① From January 21, 2003 to April 2006, the Plaintiff leased some of the instant apartment of this case (No. 2 can be leased to KimCC), and the Plaintiff and his spouse were residing independently in the remainder of the instant apartment of this case, but it is difficult to independently believe that the instant apartment of No. 4-1 (Lease Agreement) was the lower part of the apartment of this case, and thus, it is difficult to view that the instant apartment of this case was the Plaintiff’s family member and the Plaintiff’s family member of this case.

(b) Whether the requirements are met;

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 through 27's statement, the plaintiff's farmland ledger was prepared on January 24, 2003 for the first time. Under the above farmland ledger, the plaintiff was admitted as a member of the new agricultural cooperative on March 31, 2005. The plaintiff was registered as a person eligible for direct payment of rice income, etc. from 2005 to 2009, redD, new EE, new FF, KimG, Kim HG, Kim HH, and Jeon-J II, which "the plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case." However, in full view of the following circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be deemed as having cultivated the land of this case with 1/2 or more of farming work from the land of this case as one's own labor force (the plaintiff cannot be deemed as having failed to meet the requirements of evidence Nos. 3-1 to 27 of the new witness evidence No. 3-27 of this case).

① In determining the scope of farmland for non-business use, whether to exclude at least 1/2 of the investment in one’s own labor force, whether to exclude the operation of a farmer by using another’s labor force under his/her own responsibility, and whether to exclude it from policy-making issues. The legislators amended the former Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 7837, Dec. 31, 2005; Presidential Decree No. 19327, Feb. 9, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 19327, Feb. 9, 2006).

② In light of not only the Plaintiff is engaged in real estate leasing business, but also the owner of real estate in Gwangju Metropolitan City, etc. (Evidence No. 2 and No. 5) and the location of farmland acquired by the Plaintiff, the developments leading to the acquisition of farmland, and profits from the purchase and sale of farmland, etc., it cannot be ruled out that the Plaintiff’s investment purpose exists for the acquisition of farmland. Therefore, it is necessary to relatively strict review the requirements of “self-determination” in accordance with the purport of the amendment

③ In light of the fact that the area of the instant land reaches 31,548 square meters, the Plaintiff appears not to be practically easy to take charge of the entire farmland-related farming day.

④ rice farmers are carried out in the order of ? ? ? Madropos ? ? Madropos ? ? Madropos ? The atmosphere, pesticide cycle, etc. need human descendants, but the remaining works need to be carried out by means of machinery, such as regras, blacks, and compacts. However, the Plaintiff has given and received money from a newFF residing in the vicinity of the instant land for all works that can be carried out by machinery (the testimony of the newFF of the witness). And if the water atmosphere facilities are well installed to some extent, labor force is not high (the testimony of the newFF). If it appears that the farming industry using machinery, such as Egras, blacks, and compacts, requires special skills, it appears that the part of the Plaintiff’s direct work does not reach 1/2 of the total farming work.

(C) Therefore, the disposition of this case is lawful since the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for re- village and self-defense with respect to the land of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.