Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 143,860,000 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2016 shall be revoked.

A. On May 21, 2004, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on May 14, 2004 with respect to the previous land on the ground of donation on May 14, 2004 with respect to 00:00 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 252-9 - 1,874 - 252-10 -- 1,077 m252-10 - (hereinafter referred to as “the previous land in this case”), and on January 17, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the previous land on the ground of sale on November 24, 2011.

B. Meanwhile, on October 29, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the future of the Plaintiff on the ground of sale on September 18, 2012, 2012 with respect to 3,355 square meters (275 m275 m275 m275 m2, Jul. 12, 2013; hereinafter “the instant substitute farmland”).

C. As to the transfer of the previous land of this case as described in paragraph (a) of this Article, the plaintiff is subject to the former Restriction of Special

(B) The Plaintiff reported capital gains tax for the year 2012 by applying the provision on capital gains tax reduction for farmland substitute land under Article 70 of the Act on December 15, 2015 (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same), but the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the farmland of this case and excluded the application of the said provision, and on April 1, 2016, notified the Plaintiff of the correction of capital gains tax of KRW 143,860,00 (including additional tax) for the year 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 9, Eul evidence 1 and 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff acquired the instant substitute farmland from 2013 to 2015, in part, to ddives.

The substitute farmland in this case constitutes substitute farmland subject to reduction of capital gains tax on substitute farmland, since it has been cultivated directly for not less than three years, such as the performance of the above substitute farmland entirely, such as the installation of a lender, pool, water cutting off, fertilizer cycle, crop spraying, etc., except for the performance of work using agricultural machinery. Accordingly, the disposition in this case on a different premise should be revoked illegally.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act; Article 67 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

In order to apply capital gains tax reduction or exemption to the farmland substitute land, "A comprehensive sea area" means that a person who resided in the previous location of farmland and directly cultivates the farmland within one year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland, by acquiring another farmland (to substitute farmland) within one year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland, and "direct cultivation" means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his own farmland or cultivating or cultivating not less than half of the farmland with his own labor for not less than three years. Furthermore, as a requirement for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, the transferor who asserts it must actively prove that the transferor is the taxpayer. The purport of the provision on capital gains tax reduction or exemption to the farmland substitute land is to protect farmers by guaranteeing free substitution of farmland and promote the development of agriculture. Therefore, if a farmland owner indirectly operates farmland by cultivating farmland using another person's labor, etc., in view of the above legal principles and relevant statutes, it shall be excluded from the subject of reduction or exemption."

In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe that Gap's statements and witness D's testimony as stated in subparagraph 4 and each of the statements or images stated in the evidence as stated in subparagraphs 5 through 14, 16, 18, 20 through 23 of this paragraph, and the fact-finding results of each inquiry as to Gap's statements or images stated in the evidence as stated in subparagraphs 5 through 14, 16, 18, 20 through 23, are insufficient to recognize them, and there is no other evidence to prove them otherwise.

Rather, part of the evidence Nos. 2 through 5, Gap Nos. 3 and 15, and Gap No. 8

In full view of witness Dd's testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings on March 9, 2017, the following circumstances are only recognized.

① D has cultivated the said substitute farmland before the Plaintiff acquired the said substitute farmland, and even until February 2016 after the Plaintiff acquired the said substitute farmland, DD has also cultivated it in the said substitute farmland.

It seems that the main parts of rice farmers were carried out by using farming machinery, such as biters, compacters, etc., such as fluorries, fertilizer cycle, roat, fluor, and rice beer work.

② While the Plaintiff operates four enterprises (ee 00 agencies, stock companiesff, gggggggg, and hhhh limited partnership companies), the Plaintiff earned a considerable amount of income exceeding KRW 80 million in 2012, approximately KRW 75 million in 2013, KRW 11 million in 2014, and KRW 100 million in 2010,000 in 2014, while the Plaintiff asserted that the amount of income earned from the farmland of this case as rice purchase payment remains approximately KRW 100-3 million in each year.

③ Considering that the area of the instant substitute farmland is considerable to approximately 3,443 square meters, rice farmers need to be tending management throughout the entire process, such as rice paddy, fertilizer cycle, waterway, fryer, and rice beer, it seems difficult for the Plaintiff to actively engage in the cultivation of the said substitute farmland in the situation where the Plaintiff operates multiple enterprises as above.

④ As alleged by the Plaintiff, part of the Plaintiff, such as water lender, pool, water deduction cycle, pesticide spraying, etc.

In light of the fact that DD received KRW 250,00 per 20 square 200 square 1math (math) from the Plaintiff even if it was engaged in the work, it is doubtful whether DD’s work with its own labor constitutes more than half of the farming work, in view of the fact that DD received KRW 230,00 from the Plaintiff.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is with merit.

shall not be effective.

3. Conclusion

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

(c)