The contents of the judgment are the same as attachment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Three-minutes of litigation costs are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 203,320,650 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on August 4, 2017 shall be revoked.

가. 윤**은 이천시 설성면 **리 ***-8 답 2,085㎡, 같은 리 ***-9 답 1,562.2㎡ 및 같은 리 ***-15 답 3,011.4㎡(이하 통틀어 '제2토지'라 한다)를 윤aa로부터매수하기로 계약을 체결한 후, 2004. 10. 18. 다시 원고의 아버지인 박**과 사이에 제2토지를 박**에게 매도하기로 하는 계약을 체결하였다. 이후 박**은 2004. 11.24. 윤@@로부터 직접 제2토지에 관한 소유권이전등기를 경료받았다.

B. In addition, around November 2004, Park* entered into a contract to purchase from Kim*******-2 6,57.9 square meters, this Ri*****-3 3,185.9 square meters, and same Ri******-12 4,128.8 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as "one land," in which land 1 and 2 are combined) and the land 1 and 2 are purchased from Kim*, and the registration of ownership was completed as to the land 1 on November 25, 2004.

C. Since July 2009, Park* entered into a farmland lease consignment agreement with the Korea Rural Community Corporation to entrust the business of leasing and managing each of the instant lands, etc. to the Korea Rural Community Corporation, and entrust the business of leasing and managing each of the instant lands, etc. to the Korea Rural Community Corporation from July 23, 2009.

D. On March 28, 2014, Park* sold each of the instant lands to the Korea Rural Community Corporation in total at KRW 677,510,00 ( KRW 457,790,000, KRW 219,720,000, KRW 219,000, KRW 219,00) on the same day, and filed a report on transfer registration of ownership on the same day. On May 26, 2014, the transfer value on May 26, 2014 was converted into actual transaction value, and the acquisition value was converted, and the Defendant filed a report on transfer income tax with the Defendant on the ground that the land falls under one of the self-employed farmland under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (farmland eligible to receive subsidies for self-employed direct payments for more than three years) and applied for reduction or exemption of tax on the total calculated tax amount of KRW 103,770,790, KRW 194 thereafter.

E. After conducting an investigation into capital gains tax on Park**, the Defendant denied the tax reduction or exemption pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act by deeming that each of the instant lands is not eligible for direct payments for business transfer; and ② On August 4, 2017, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 29,300,000,000 as stated in the relevant contract, for the reason that the sales contract (Evidence A-7-1) on the land submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed a real contract, and instead did not recognize the purchase price of KRW 145,471,365 as the acquisition price (as it is, recognition of the purchase price of KRW 128,80,00 as it is), applying the converted acquisition price of KRW 145,471,365 (including additional taxes) on the land submitted by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

F. On November 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. However, on February 26, 2018, the appeal was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) Since each of the instant lands constitutes “farmland eligible for direct payments for business transfer under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act,” it constitutes “farmland eligible for subsidies for business transfer under Article 69(1) of the same Act, which is the owner of the land** for more than three years, the entire capital gains tax should be reduced or exempted. Nevertheless, the Defendant determined that each of the instant lands does not constitute “farmland eligible for subsidies for business transfer support” and rendered the instant disposition without reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, and thus,

2) Since a sales contract (No. 7 No. 7) on the land of the Plaintiff submitted is genuine, it is unlawful to deny the sales price and apply the conversion acquisition value on the ground that the Defendant cannot be deemed as real transaction price on the land of the Plaintiff, even though the purchase price of KRW 293 million stated therein is to be recognized as the acquisition price on the land of the first. Furthermore, even if the purchase price of the said sales contract cannot be deemed as real transaction amount, there is an example of sale on the land of the first and the adjacent and similar second lands, even if the sale price of the said sales contract cannot be deemed as real transaction amount, so the Defendant’s conversion acquisition value should have been calculated by applying the sale price of the second land pursuant to Article 176-2(3) of Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(i)a claim that is farmland eligible for direct payments for business transfer;

A) Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) provides that where farmland eligible for management direct payments as prescribed by Presidential Decree is transferred to the Korea Rural Community Corporation, capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for the land self-employed for three years or longer. Article 66(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the term “management direct payments subsidies as prescribed by Presidential Decree” under the main sentence of Article 69(1) of the same Act provides that the implementation rule for direct payments for agricultural producers (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25918, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter referred to as “the implementation rule of this case”) provides that the term “farmland eligible for management subsidies” under Article 4 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act refers to farmland subject to management reduction or exemption under Article 69(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the term “farmland eligible for management subsidies” under Article 6(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B) On this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion, Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of this case provides that one of the requirements for applying for management transfer subsidies shall be “farmers falling under the age prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs as of December 31 of the year in which the date of application for the selection falls.” The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs No. 138, Apr. 7, 2015) sets the above age between 65 and 70 (Article 3). Gabling* (the date of transfer of each land (the date of August 29, 1939) is 74 years old (the date of transfer as of December 31 of the year in which the date of application for management transfer falls) and therefore, it cannot be deemed that each of the farmland subject to management grant is clearly subject to the requirements for management grant under Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of this case.

On the other hand, Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the implementation rule of this case defines "lease or Entrustment of Farmland to the Korea Rural Community Corporation" as "lease or Entrustment of Farmland to the Korea Rural Community Corporation," and it can be seen that "lease or Entrustment of Land of this case to the Korea Rural Community Corporation around July 2009" under the above implementation rule, and therefore, it is necessary to determine whether the person subject to application under Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the implementation rule of this case satisfies the age requirements of the person subject to application under Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the above implementation rule * * the above management of each land of this case * * the above- as of July 2009. However, since Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the transfer income tax that arises when transferring the farmland subject to direct payments of this case shall be reduced or exempted, the above argument of the plaintiff can not be accepted as a matter of course.

C) Therefore, it is legitimate for the Defendant to deny the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax by deeming that each of the instant lands does not constitute farmland eligible for direct payments for business transfer. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2) Claim regarding the acquisition value of land No. 1

A) First, as the sales contract (Evidence A No. 7-1) for the first land is genuine, there is no broker’s entry in the sales contract for the first land, and as to the assertion that the acquisition price should be recognized as the purchase price (293 million won) stated in the sales contract for the first land, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, i.e., the purchase price stated in the sales contract for the first land is 293 million won, whereas the transfer price reported by the seller of the first land is 147 million won, the transfer price reported by the seller of the first land is 147 million won, and Park** fails to submit objective financial transaction data verifying that the first land sales contract for the first land was actually paid to the seller, even if considering the first land sales contract for the first land sales contract, there is no entry in the whole contract for the buyer’s name, and there is no entry in the phone number of the parties to the transaction, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the sale price was a real real and real real transaction price stated in the sales contract cannot be accepted.

B) Next, it is deemed that the acquisition value of the land should be calculated by applying the following provisions. Article 176-2(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25522, Jul. 28, 2014) provides that the acquisition value of the land shall be applied in preference to the conversion acquisition value of the land if the land is estimated or corrected. In this case, the following facts and circumstances are as follows: ① Gambi and 2 land price of the land is 7,100 square meters and 21,50 square meters each to be acquired; ② Gambi and 200/m200/m200 of the sale value of the land are all the same as the sale value of the land; ② the land price of each land of the instant case is calculated under the name of the Korea Rural Community Corporation that purchased each of the land of this case as the sale value of the land of this case. The difference between the sale value of the land of this case and the land of this case is difficult.

C) Meanwhile, if the transfer income tax for the year 2014, which is to be imposed on the Plaintiff by applying the sales price of the second land as the transaction example of the first land, is calculated again, it would be KRW 135,927,975 (including additional tax) (see the Defendant’s reference document on April 16, 2019).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the disposition of this case exceeding the above KRW 135,927,975 (including additional tax) is unlawful. Therefore, the remaining claim of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.