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

가. 원고는 2004. 8. 4. 부산 강서구 명지동 896-7 전 2,412㎡(이하 '이 사건 토지'라 한다)를 소외 김◎◎으로부터 217,000,000원에 취득한 후, 2007. 2. 13. 소외 김◍◍에게 255,000,000원에 매도하였다.

B. On April 27, 2007, the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer income tax to the Defendant by applying the basic tax rate of 18% with respect to the transfer of the instant land.

C. After conducting a field investigation of the capital gains tax on the instant land, the Defendant determined and notified 14,584,860 won of the capital gains tax for the year 2007, on the ground that the transfer of the instant land constitutes the transfer of non-business land that did not meet the self-defense requirement, by applying 60% of the heavy tax rate for the land for non-business use (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The plaintiff raised an objection against the defendant on July 16, 2008 on the grounds that the plaintiff is not satisfied, but on July 29, 2008.

The above application was dismissed, and thereafter, on January 10, 2008, the Tax Tribunal filed a request for a trial, but the above claim was dismissed on December 26, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On August 4, 2004, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from Kim Mandong, and from November 2004, from the point of time to February 2007, the Plaintiff directly leased a control device from Kim Mancheon-dong, Busan, which was located in Seocheon-dong, and on the other hand, from the point of time to February 1, 2007, the Nonparty’s door, which is the Plaintiff’s son, was directly operated and operated at night. Thus, the instant disposition that was otherwise determined was unlawful even if the Plaintiff did not directly put any time restrictions on the Plaintiff’s son.

(b) Related statutes;

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The evidence as shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion is indicated as follows: Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 6-1 through 6, and Gap evidence 7-9.

(2) 그러나 제1항에서 든 증거들에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 원고는 이 사건 토지를 김◎◎으로부터 매수하면서 작성한 2004. 6. 23.자 부동산매매계약서에 특약사항으로 토지 경작은 매도인이 계숙하며 2005년부터 경작료는 평당 1,000원으로 한다 라는 내용을 명시한 점, ② 원고는 2002. 7. 2.부터 2006. 6. 30.까지 부산 북구 덕천동 399-4 소재 '▽▽하우스'라는 상호의 음식점을 운영하였던 점, ③ 원고는 이 사건 토지에서 파농사를 직접 지었다고 주장하나, 원고가 70세 가량의 고령으로, 파 농사에 대한 기본 지식을 전혀 가지고 있지 않는 것으로 보일 뿐만 아니라, 수확물의 판매처에 대한 자료를 전혀 제출하지 봇하고 있는 점에다가 ④ 박▼▼은 위 실지조사 과정에서 2004년 양도 이후에도 이 사건 토지를 김◎◎ 몇 그의 아들 김♤♤가 계속 경작하고 있다고 진술했고, 김♤♤도 같은 취지의 전화 진술 을 했던 점(그 뒤 박▼▼, 김♤♤는 위와 같은 진술내용이 사실과 다르다는 취지의 갑 제8호증, 갑 제9호증을 원고에게 작성해 준 바 있다)까지 보태어 보면, 원고가 제출한 증거들만으로는 원고가 이 사건 토지에서 직접 대파 경작을 하였다고 인정하기에 부족 하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

Ultimately, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on the instant land, or did not cultivate or cultivate more than 1/2 of the farming work with its own labor, for a period exceeding the period exceeding two years after deducting two years from the ownership period of the instant land, and for a period exceeding twenty percent of the ownership period of the instant land.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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