2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On December 23, 1976, with respect to 00, 00, 00, 000 m2, 516 m2, 701-1 m2, 701-2, and 610 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands”), each registration of ownership transfer was made under the Plaintiff’s name on December 23, 1976 with respect to 00,00,000 m2,000 m2,000,000,000,000 m2, 704 m2,000 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands”), and the Plaintiff’s registration of ownership transfer was made under the Plaintiff’s name on November 3, 1987, on each of the instant lands.

B. On September 19, 2003, the Plaintiff transferred each of the instant land and each of the instant land to ○○○, and filed an application for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax on the grounds that the Defendant, on October 25, 2003, self-concepted each of the instant land and each of the instant land for more than eight years.

C. As to this, the Defendant: (a) on October 15, 2004, the Plaintiff succeeded to each of the relevant lands of this case from the ○○○○○○ upon the completion of the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7003, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter the same), which constitutes an exemption and reduction of capital gains tax; (b) although each of the instant lands was acquired by the Plaintiff on December 23, 197, not the land inherited from ○○○○○○, but the land acquired on December 1976, and the Plaintiff did not reside in ○○○○○ City, which is the location of each of the instant lands, for the reason that it does not constitute an exemption and reduction of capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act; and (c) on October 15, 2004, imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 17, Gap 18, Gap 19-1 through 19-6, Gap 25, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On December 23, 1976, 1976, the Plaintiff’s denial ○○○ acquired each of the instant lands and title trust the Plaintiff with respect to each of the instant lands, and each of the instant lands was registered for transfer of ownership under the Plaintiff’s name on December 23, 1976. After that, ○○○○ resided in ○○○○○○, a location of each of the instant lands, for more than eight years and cultivated each of the instant lands, and died on November 3, 1987, and accordingly, the Plaintiff inherited each of the instant lands. Accordingly, even though the income from the transfer of each of the instant lands constituted the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the Defendant’s disposition that reported that only the income from the transfer of each of the instant lands constituted the reduction or exemption of

(b) Related statutes;

former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7003 of Dec. 30, 2003)

Article 69 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

(1) With respect to the income tax accruing from a transfer of land prescribed by the Presidential Decree, which is directly cultivated by the resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree residing in the location of such land for not less than eight years [not later than December 31, 2005, five years in case where the farmland in the agricultural promotion area under Article 32 of the Farmland Act is incorporated into the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act or a corporation prescribed by the Presidential Decree which runs the agricultural industry (hereafter in this Article, referred to as the "agricultural corporation") and runs the business of agriculture] and which is subject to the taxation of agricultural income tax (including the objects of non-taxation, reduction and exemption, and small collection), the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the transfer income tax shall be reduced or exempted: Provided, That if the relevant land is incorporated into the residential area, commercial area and industrial area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereafter in this Article, referred to as the "residential area, etc.") or has been designated as the reserved land other than the farmland prior to the replotting disposition under the Urban Development Act and other Acts

(3) Any person who intends to be subjected to paragraph (1) shall apply for tax abatement or exemption as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

The former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18176, Dec. 30, 2003)

Article 66 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

(1) For the purpose of the main sentence of Article 69 (1) of the Act, the term “resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of the farmland” means a person who has cultivated while residing in the area falling under any of the following subparagraphs for not less than 8 years (in case of transfer to the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation under the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation and Farmland Corporation Act, or to the corporation under paragraph (2), 5 years):

1. An area in a Si/Gun/Gu (referring to an autonomous Gu; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) where farmland is located;

2. An area within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to an area referred to in subparagraph 1.

(3) For the purpose of the main sentence of Article 69 (1) of the Act, the term “land as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” means the farmland which has been cultivated by himself for not less than 8 years (in case of transfer to the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation under the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation and Farmland Management Corporation Act or to the corporation under paragraph (2), 5 years) from the time of acquisition until the time of transfer, excluding the farmland falling under any of the following subparagraphs. In this case, in calculating the period of farmland

C. Determination

(1) The registration titleholder of the ownership transfer of real estate shall be presumed to be the owner of the real estate due to the validity of the registration. Unlike the registration titleholder of the ownership transfer, the claimant bears the burden of proof that the registration titleholder is merely the title truster. As such, as to whether the plaintiff's denying ○○○○ purchases each of the land of this case and title trust the ownership of each of the land of this case to the plaintiff on December 23, 1976, it is insufficient to recognize that the statement in the name of the plaintiff, Gap 6, 12, and 20, and the testimony in the name of the witness ○○○○ was made, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the plaintiff acquired the ownership transfer registration of each of the land of this case on December 23, 1976 and became its owner.

(2) As seen in the above related Acts and subordinate statutes, Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides for the purport that capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for the income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by the Presidential Decree, which has been cultivated directly for not less than eight years by the "resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree residing in the location of the farmland" for not less than eight years, among the land subject to agricultural income tax, and Article 66 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 18176 of Dec. 30, 2003) means the person who has cultivated the land within the Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland is located for not less than eight years, ② the person who has resided in the area within the Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the above subparagraph 1, and the Plaintiff shall not be deemed to have resided in the Si/Gun/Gu where the income from the transfer of each of the land of this case from 00 Si/Gun/Gu or its adjoining Si/Gun/Gu for not less than eight years to 97 197.2, 197.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition that deemed that the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax on the transfer of each of the instant lands does not constitute an exemption or reduction under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act 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.