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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 on the Plaintiff on October 0, 2015 shall be revoked.

A. On June 28, 2003, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s mother, donated the Ulsan 00 Dog,000 Dog,000,000 Dog-do 1,600 Dog (hereinafter “the land of this case”). On October 00, 2007, as the land was divided due to the project for expansion of the road, the said land was divided into the said road construction project and the said land was divided into 00 Dog-dog 1,000 Dog-dog 1,000 Dog-dog 1,000 Dog was incorporated into the said road expansion project.

B. Accordingly, on October 00, 2008, the Plaintiff prepared a written agreement for compensation for losses with the Metropolitan City Mayor on October 00, 2008 and received KRW 00,000,000 as compensation for losses.

C. In accordance with Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9131 of Sep. 26, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "former Restriction of Special Taxation Act") and Article 67(3)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21064 of Oct. 7, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act"), the Plaintiff applied "in cases of acquiring another farmland within two years in cases of expropriation by consultation or expropriation under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects or under other Acts" and Article 67(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21064 of Oct. 7, 2008).

D. On October 00, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired a 00-00 square meters in Ulsan-gun,000,000 square meters (hereinafter “the instant 2 land”) and the said 200-0 square meters divided from the said land were incorporated into the road construction work project on October 00, 201, No. 201-1208,000,000 square meters in a 00-0 square meters divided from the said land. The Plaintiff entered into a compensation contract with the head of the Gun on October 0, 2012 and received KRW 00,000 for compensation for losses.

E. On October 0, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the estimated tax amount of KRW 00,000,000, which reverts to the year 2008, on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land 2, and subsequently did not continue to re-beatate for three years or longer pursuant to Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

F. On October 0, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review on the Defendant’s notice of taxation, but the Defendant, on October 0, 2014, did not adopt it, and on October 0, 2015, imposed a disposition of KRW 00,000,000 on the Plaintiff for the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

G. On October 0, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but received a decision of dismissal on October 0, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff acquired the land No. 2 of this case and cultivated crops directly or jointly with the Plaintiff’s spouse, the Defendant’s disposition denying the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the premise that the Plaintiff did not do so on the land No. 2 of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff had been serving as a public official in the 00-Gun office prior to the donation of the instant land No. 1, but worked in 00 even before the land was moved to the promotion group of 00:0:0 on October 00, 2014.

2) Around October 2010, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land No. 2, but the former owner had already recovered, and thus, the harvest of rice plants was conducted by the former owner.

3) Around October 2011, 201, the area of land No. 2 in the instant case is growing up to 1/4. However, the remainder was either used as a farming farm for nearby farmland or grassing.

4) On spring around 2012, the instant land No. 2 was planted, but the farming was not properly conducted. The SongB thought that the Plaintiff renounced farming houses, and then laid the land No. 2 in the nearby farmland, and the harvested together with the land No. 2, and thereafter the harvested were transmittedB.

5) Since 2013, land No. 2 in the instant case is left unbrupted in a state of miscellaneous land, and there is no trace of cultivation, such as being lengthed in the middle of farmland.

6) The Plaintiff’s domicile is 00 Gun, and the Plaintiff’s wife and children reside within 00 Gun.

7) Meanwhile, before the Plaintiff purchased the instant land No. 2, part of the instant land was already included in the said project, before the project period was October 2008 to October 2015, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, entry of evidence Nos. 3 to 10, testimony of the witness BB and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) The purport of Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is to protect farmers through free permission and guarantee of substitution of farmland, or to develop and encourage agriculture. Therefore, it is necessary to restrict cases where acquiring and selling farmland for the purpose of cultivating farmland for the sake of necessity of cultivation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5924, Sept. 5, 2003). The meaning of "direct cultivation" as a requirement for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax should be strictly determined depending on whether a resident engages in cultivating crops in his own farmland or growing or growing 1/2 or more of farming works with his own labor, and it is reasonable to determine that such act constitutes a person who is engaged in farming or growing 1/2 or more of farming works directly or indirectly in his/her own occupation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du9481, Feb. 9, 201).

2) Each statement of evidence Nos. 8 through 10 submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff cultivated directly on the land No. 2 of this case. Considering the following circumstances, the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of farmland on the land under Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit (as part of the land No. 2 of this case was purchased through consultation and expropriated within 3 years in accordance with the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works within 3 years, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff cultivated while residing in the location of the land where the land was located for 3 years or more pursuant to Article 67(4) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, but this constitutes a case where the self-employed farmer intended to cultivate for 3 years or more, but it could not meet the requirements for farming for 3 years or more due to public activities, etc. from the beginning of this case, and the remaining provision of the Plaintiff’s land.

① The Plaintiff worked as a public official prior to the donation of the instant land No. 1, and continued to serve as a public official even after the acquisition of the instant land No. 2, so there is a lack of absolute time for the Plaintiff to directly refrain from farming houses, and the Plaintiff’s wife lives in the city for education of his children, and it seems difficult for the Plaintiff’s wife to embarrain the instant land No. 2.

② 송BB는 2012년 봄경 이 사건 제2토지에 호박과 고구마 순이 심어져 있기는 하였으나 호박 넝쿨이 잡초 사이로 늘어져 있고 잡초가 무성한 상태라 원고가 농사를 포기한 것으로 생각하여 이 사건 제2토지에 모내기를 하였고, 이후 논에 물이 마르면 물을 넣어주고 수확도 송BB가 하였다고 증언하였는바, 설령 송BB가 원고로부터 인건비 명목으로 돈을 받았다고 하더라도 사실상 이 사건 제2토지에서 이루어진 모내기부터 수확까지 모든 농사일은 원고가 아닌 송BB에 의해 이루어진 것으로 볼 것이다.

③ Although the Plaintiff acquired the instant land No. 2 around October 2010, it was found that the harvest was made by the former owner, and around May 201, 201, 1/4 of the area of land No. 2 in the instant case. However, even though the remainder was used or grassed as neighboring farmland, the land No. 2 in the instant case was neglected, such as (i) it was used or grassed as neighboring farmland, and (ii) it was unfluentd in the instant land No. 2 in the middle and is lengthed.

④ Prior to the Plaintiff’s acquisition, the land No. 2 was publicly announced as being partially incorporated into “(00) Packaging Corporation,” and such content was also known through newspapers. In particular, the Plaintiff worked with 00 Gun 00 and sufficiently known the above content. From the beginning, there was a possibility that the Plaintiff could not acquire the land No. 2 due to the necessity of cultivation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.