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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 22,55,730 for the Plaintiff on December 1, 2013 shall be revoked.

A. On May 7, 2004, the Plaintiff: (a) on May 7, 2004, 00 ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong (hereinafter “instant land”).

The instant land was transferred on June 5, 2013, when it was acquired after purchasing and holding it.

B. The Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years upon filing a preliminary return on capital gains tax.

Although the Defendant filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, it is alleged that the Plaintiff did not cultivate more than 1/2 of the farming work from the instant land with his own labor, and the Plaintiff did not apply the capital gains tax reduction or exemption provisions on self-employed farmland, and on December 1, 2013, 22,55,730 capital gains tax for the Plaintiff was corrected and notified (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on May 8, 2014, but was dismissed on July 11, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 13, Eul Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff acquired the land of this case for 9 years and 1 months in the location and vicinity of the land of this case.

Since the land of this case was cultivated directly while living together, the disposition of this case denying this constitutes reduction and exemption of self-arable farmland is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Presidential Decree No. 2685, Feb. 3, 2

Article 66(1) and (13) of the former Act clearly stipulates that a resident shall directly cultivate the relevant farmland while residing in a Si/Gun/Gu where the relevant farmland is located, in an area within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the relevant farmland, or in an area within 20 km in a straight line from the relevant farmland for at least eight years. In this case, the term "direct cultivation" means that a resident engages in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland at all times or by cultivating or cultivating at least 1/2 of them with his/her own labor. Therefore, the meaning of "one-2 or more own labor" should be interpreted to determine whether he/she directly cultivates the farmland (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010). The burden of proving that he/she directly cultivated the transferred land as the requirement for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on his/her own farmland is the person liable to pay capital gains tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 190Nu64.

2) As to the instant case, the witness testimony No. 3, including the witness testimony ○○○.

In full view of the evidence and the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone had cultivated 1/2 or more of the farming work on the land of this case directly with its own labor during the period of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

○ The Plaintiff causes police officers belonging to the ○ Provincial Police Agency from March 31, 1990 to February 4, 2009.

The plaintiff could directly cultivate the land of this case after the acquisition of the land of this case. The period of direct cultivation seems to have been extremely limited.

According to the result of analyzing the Plaintiff’s Cash Receipt Use From 2005 to 2009:

The plaintiff seems to have engaged mainly in consumption activities in the area of ○○, which is not the neighboring area of the land of this case. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff had cultivated directly while residing in the land of this case

○ The State ○○, which was the subject of the lease to the Plaintiff of the land adjacent to the instant land, was the Police Corporation.

At the time of work as a free source, he/she has been engaged in the land of this case at least once a week in ordinary days, and in ordinary times, there is a letter of confirmation that he/she or an employee has been in charge of cultivation, etc. and submitted to the defendant.

The testimony of the ○○○ witness also goes through the land of this case, and only one of them can do so.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s direct view that the Plaintiff was living in a manager of the instant land, and that the Plaintiff thought that the Plaintiff was living in a farming house in the instant land, and that the state ○○ was living in a manager of the instant land when the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s direct cultivation was carried out after the Plaintiff’s relative residing in a manager of the instant land in the spring in 2005, because of the fact that the Plaintiff was living in a manager of the instant land, and the Plaintiff’s friendly group residing in the manager of the instant land in the spring in 205.

○○ The factual confirmation, written statement, etc. submitted by the Plaintiff to prove the cultivation of the instant land was insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was engaging in growing crops or growing or growing or growing them with his own labor for eight years, on the ground that the Plaintiff purchased blue seedlings and worked as a police officer, and his family was in charge of cash receipt processing using the Plaintiff’s telephone number for year-end settlement.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition is lawful.

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.