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

The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 209,066,410 on December 1, 2012 by the defendant of the Gu office against the plaintiff on December 1, 2012 shall be revoked.

A. On September 4, 2003, the Plaintiff owned 00,000 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 410 - 410 - 673 m2 (hereinafter “the instant farmland”) with the gift, and subsequently transferred the instant farmland to GaB on January 31, 2012, and filed a preliminary return on the transfer income tax reverted to the Defendant on March 24, 2012 on March 24, 2012, on the ground that the instant farmland constitutes self-farmland for eight years.

B. On December 1, 2012, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the farmland of this case for at least eight years by conducting a field investigation on the farmland of this case, and rendered the instant disposition imposing and notifying the Plaintiff of capital gains tax of KRW 209,066,410 (including additional tax) for the year 2012. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination by the Board of Audit and Inspection on February 28, 2013, but dismissed on February 6, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 7

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff acquired the farmland of this case from the Busan High Court on September 4, 2003, the Plaintiff resided in the vicinity of the farmland, and constantly cultivated the farmland of this case by planting fruit trees, such as ornamental trees, bamboo trees, and bamboo bamboo trees, etc., and cultivated crops such as spath and spathal, etc. on the farmland of this case without planting trees. Thus, the Plaintiff constitutes exemption from capital gains tax on self-arable farmland pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of transfer income tax shall be reduced for the income accruing from the transfer of land directly cultivated by the resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the location of the farmland for not less than eight years, and as such, the taxpayer has the burden of proving that he has cultivated the farmland directly.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of each statement and pleading of evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 3, the Plaintiff was a public official from around 2002 to the Board of Audit and Inspection located in Seoul 00-00, and served in the Constitutional Court from February 2, 2009 to the present date. The Plaintiff’s farmland ledger was first prepared on October 24, 2006 and was written on October 8, 2006, and was written on the said farmland ledger at least 3,168 square meters around 00,00,000 to 3,168 square meters, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff acquired the farmland ledger alone, and there is no reason to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s testimony was insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the purchaser of the farmland of this case and neighboring residents did not directly own the farmer’s death, and that there was lack of evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s testimony or lack of evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was a witness of No. 1 or witness of No. 4.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.