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

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s land owned by the Plaintiff on July 16, 1986, which was located in the area of 2,863 square meters in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, Busan-gun, Busan-gun, in accordance with the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects on February 12, 2008.

2) On April 12, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a report with the Defendant on April 12, 2008, the acquisition price of the above land is KRW 14,103,50, and the transfer price is KRW 459,368,350. Of the above land, KRW 2,213 square meters of the above land (hereinafter “instant land”) is limited to not less than eight years, and Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”), which is a provision on reduction and exemption of capital gains tax, shall be applied. As a result, the Plaintiff filed a report and paid that capital gains tax for 00-00 won is KRW 12,321,684.

B. On October 9, 2009, the Defendant increased the transfer income tax for the year 2008 to KRW 101,019,510 (including additional tax 1,412,768) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not regard the land of this case as being self-fluored for eight (8) years (hereinafter “the disposition of this case”) (hereinafter “the remainder calculated by subtracting the already paid tax amount, etc. from KRW 23,651,43 during the above increase).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i) Reduction or exemption of transfer income tax for self-arable farmland;

The self-defense refers to the formation of a farmer under his responsibility. The land of this case is confirmed by the surveying of the Korea Cadastral Corporation, and the Plaintiff was self-employed for not less than eight years with the land of this case directly or with the wife under his responsibility. Therefore, the transfer income tax on the land of this case should be entirely reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the disposition of this case is unlawful.

2) Reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on substitute land for farmland

Even if the Plaintiff did not own the instant land for not less than 8 years, at least 3 years did not own the instant land, and the Plaintiff acquired and substituteed the instant land for 1,273 square meters on October 22, 2009, which was 2 years after the land was expropriated in Busan Urban Corporation. Accordingly, the transfer income tax on the instant land ought to be entirely reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) Determination as to the assertion of reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-farmland

A) With respect to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-arable farmland, Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for income accruing from the transfer of land directly cultivated by a resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the location of such farmland for not less than eight years. Article 66(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307 of Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree") provides that "resident who resides in the location of farmland" in the main sentence of Article 69(1) of the same Act means a resident who resides in a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located, a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the said area, an area within 20 kilometers in a straight line from the said farmland (hereinafter referred to as "an area subject to reduction or exemption"), and Article 66(12) of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "direct cultivation or permanent cultivation of farmland means one-one-year or more.

In addition, in cases where a person wishes to have capital gains tax reduced or exempted on the ground that the transferred land is self-farmland pursuant to each of the above provisions, the fact that the claimant is actively proven the fact that the transferred land was used as farmland, and thereby, it is not presumed that the transferor is minor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu11893, Jul. 13, 1993; 94Nu96, Oct. 21, 1994).

B) Comprehensively taking account of the above provisions and legal principles, in order for the Plaintiff to obtain a reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the ground that it is self-arable farmland, the Plaintiff had resided in the area subject to reduction or exemption for not less than eight years and cultivated crops or cultivated perennial plants with his own labor for not less than a half of them at all times or with their own labor, and

The plaintiff himself/herself cultivated the land of this case during the period of eight years or more, in light of the form and content of the statement of No. 6, No. 7, and No. 1 through No. 3, and No. 9, each of the statement of No. 3 through No. 5, among the evidence that the plaintiff submitted as evidence that he/she cultivated the land of this case for not less than eight years, shall not be deemed to have an independent value of evidence because the plaintiff himself/herself stated his/her assertion. In light of the form and content of the statement of No. 6, No. 7, and No. 1 through No. 3, and No. 9 (the content of the statement is too detailed or as seen below, while the plaintiff did not reside in the area subject to reduction

Furthermore, the remaining evidence Nos. 6, 7's evidence Nos. 1 to 3, 9's each part of evidence Nos. 8, 11 through 15, 18, 19's evidence Nos. 19 (including all of the pertinent numbers) with the exception of the above believed parts, and the purport of the whole pleadings is added to the testimony and video of the first instance court witness ParkB testimony of the first instance court and the inquiry into the President of the Busan Urban Corporation in the first instance court, and the fact that the plaintiff or the plaintiff's wife KimCC raised trees at two risks of the land in this case, and part of the remaining area is 30's 4's 4's 0's 7's 0's 7's 7's 7's 07's 4's 7's 7's 7's 0's 0's 's 's 's 's ', '7' 's 's 's 's 's '4''s 's 's '7''s 's '''''''s ''''.

However, as seen below, in the instant case where there are many disputes as to whether the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land due to the Plaintiff’s occupation and the period of residence in Korea, it is insufficient to recognize that part of the instant land was used as farmland by itself, and that there was a deficit in the Plaintiff’s cultivation. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was engaging in the Plaintiff’s cultivation or cultivating the instant land for not less than 8 years with labor force of not less than 1/2.

C) Rather, comprehensively taking account of the above evidence (except for the portion not believed) and evidence Nos. 21 and evidence Nos. 21 and evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 8’s 1 through 6, the whole purport of pleadings is added to ① on Oct. 19, 196, the Plaintiff resided in the present place, which is a neighboring area of the land, with the head of Busan, for the purpose of 196’s dwelling (it shall be calculated from Oct. 196 to Oct. 19, 196). The Plaintiff’s remaining 6G 10 days away from 10,000 to 10 days away from 10,000, on Sept. 13, 2006, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s remaining 6G 4 years away from 12 years away from 10,000 to 10 days away from 10,000,000 won of the instant land.

D) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit, which is premised on the fact that the Plaintiff had self-defenseed the instant land for not less than eight years.

2) Determination on the assertion of reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on substitute farmland

A) With respect to reduction and exemption of capital gains tax on the substitute land for farmland, Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for the income accruing from substitute land for farmland corresponding to “cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree” which are cultivated by a resident residing in the location of farmland under the Presidential Decree due to the necessity for cultivation. Article 67(3)1 of the former Enforcement Decree provides that a person who resided in the former location of farmland for not less than three years and cultivated another land within one year from the date of transfer of the former farmland (two years in cases where land is purchased by consultation or expropriated under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor and expropriated under other Acts) and resided in a new location of farmland for not less than three years and cultivated it.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, in the reduction or exemption of transfer income tax on the substitute farmland, the meaning of the location of the farmland and the meaning of the self-employed farmland is the same as the reduction or exemption of transfer income tax on the self-employed farmland (see Article 67(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree). The burden of proof on this is also in the position of asserting

B) Even based on all the evidence of the Plaintiff’s submission, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had replaced the instant land for at least three years prior to the expropriation of the instant land on the grounds as seen earlier, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the same differently.

In addition, for the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the substitute farmland, it shall be done by residing in a new location of farmland for not less than three years after the acquisition of substitute farmland (Article 67(3)1 of the former Enforcement Decree). Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of a 1,273m2,00 m2,00 m2,000 m2, which is the substitute farmland, on October 22, 2009. Since it is obvious in calculating the period that three years have not elapsed since the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is one mother or without merit.

3. Conclusion

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