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

A. On February 2, 2005, the Plaintiff’s father KimB acquired and owned 00-0 square meters of 00-0 O2,617 m2, 1,709 m2,284 m2,200-0 m2,284 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,071 m2,000 m2,000 m2 (hereinafter “the previous farmland”). On April 1, 2008, on May 30, 200, the above KimB acquired and transferred m2,00-0 m2,000 m2,776 m2,73 m2,670 m2, and 75 m2,000 m2,00 m2,000 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00

B. KimB filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax due to farmland substitute land pursuant to Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act for the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2008 due to the transfer of the previous farmland of this case.

C. On March 26, 2010, KimB died, and KimB’s legal heir was the Plaintiff, KimB, Kim Yong-B, the spouse of which was the largestF and his child, and the Plaintiff, Kim GG, Kim HH, Kim II, and Kim J. However, on the land of this case, on June 14, 2010, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff’s future due to the division of inherited property on the ground of the division of inherited property.

D. The Defendant denied the application of Article 67(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which provides for adding up the period of cultivation of the substitute farmland of this case by KimB, and Article 67(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which provides that the period of cultivation of the substitute farmland of this case by KimB falls short of three years, and the Plaintiff, the inheritor of KimB, could not directly cultivate the substitute farmland of this case, and imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on June 10, 201, KRW 62,365,310 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 2, 201, but was dismissed on October 18, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 7 (if there are provisional numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 67 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, in applying the reduction and exemption provisions by substitute farmland for farmland, where the farmland owner dies within three years after acquiring new farmland, and where the inheritor continues to cultivate while residing in the location of the farmland, the period of cultivation of the decedent and that of the inheritor shall be aggregated, and the above provision merely stipulates that the person who can add up the cultivation period is a mere "he inheritor". Thus, even though the Plaintiff did not cultivate substitute farmland in this case, the heir is also a statutory inheritor. However, even though the Plaintiff did not cultivate substitute farmland in this case, the spouse FF, the legal heir of KimB, is directly cultivated in the location of substitute farmland in this case. Thus, the Defendant denied the reduction and exemption by substitute land in spite of the sum of the cultivation period between KimB and the maximum FF, and the disposition of this case by the Defendant is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67(1) through (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a person who resided in the previous farmland for not less than three years and cultivated while residing in a new farmland location for not less than three years within one year from the date of transfer of previous farmland, the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the transfer income tax shall be reduced or exempted. Article 67(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Decree provides that in calculating the period cultivated by a farmland owner while residing in a new farmland location for not less than three years, if the farmland owner acquired farmland and his/her heir continuously cultivated while residing in the location of the farmland, the period of cultivation and the cultivation period of the decedent shall be aggregated if he/she resided within three years from the date of acquisition of the farmland. In full view of the purport of the capital gains tax exemption system by substitute land of farmland permits free substitution of farmland, and the above provision, "he heir under Article 67(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act" shall be deemed to have a new farmland inheritance, i.

2) In the instant case, according to the facts that the Health Center and KimB died on March 26, 2010, and the fact that the ownership transfer registration was made in the Plaintiff’s future on the grounds of division of inherited property on June 14, 2010 as to the instant substitute farmland on the grounds of division of inherited property on June 14, 2010, the Plaintiff had been living in Incheon or Gun, and had been engaged in business until now since the Plaintiff moved into Incheon on October 21, 2008. Thus, since KimB died, the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the substitute farmland at the location of the instant substitute farmland, and thus, the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax for the instant substitute farmland, and even if FF, which was merely a statutory inheritor, other than the heir of the relevant substitute farmland, resided in the location of the instant substitute farmland, the Defendant’s lawful disposition of reduction and exemption of capital gains tax for the instant farmland and its total cultivation period and its total cultivation period can not be denied.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.