1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 24, 1999, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 61.16/1720 (hereinafter “instant land”) out of 480 ○○○-dong 480, 1624 square meters prior to 1624 square meters. On December 29, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to ○○○-si, ○○-si, ○○○-dong, and filed an application for reduction of capital gains tax with the Defendant on the ground that the instant land constitutes self-farmland for at least eight years on February 26, 2007.

B. On November 14, 2008, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that imposed capital gains tax of KRW 65,395,830 on the Plaintiff on November 14, 2008 on the ground that the Plaintiff and the decedent did not reside in the Si/Gun/Gu or Gu adjacent to the location of the instant land, and that the actual self-sufficiency was not verified, and thus, the provision on reduction and exemption of treasury farmland cannot be applied.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant land was acquired and owned by the Plaintiff and her husband Park Dong on November 25, 1993, and the instant land was transferred to △△△ Corporation on December 29, 2006 after the Plaintiff succeeded to the Plaintiff on October 24, 1999, and the instant land was owned by her husband for not less than eight years while residing in the △△-gu adjacent to the said land location from November 25, 1993, which was acquired jointly with Ga, and thus, the instant disposition by the Defendant on a different premise was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 69(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Taxation Restriction (amended by Act No. 8146, Dec. 30, 2006; hereafter the same shall apply in this Act) and Article 66(11) and (12) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620, Feb. 22, 2008) provide that the period of taxation equivalent to 100/100 of the transfer income tax shall be included in the cultivation period of the decedent, where the heir acquires farmland while residing in the Si/Gun/Gu/Gu/Gu/Gu where the farmland is located or adjacent thereto for at least eight years, that is, the resident of the Si/Gun/Gu/Gu/Gu where the farmland is located.

(2) Therefore, the key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff and the decedent deceased Si/Gun/Gu residing in the Si/Gun/Gu where the instant land was located or Si/Gun/Gu residing in the Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto, and whether the instant land was engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants at all times or by cultivating or cultivating them with their own labor, and thus, the issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff and the decedent deceased Si/Gun/Gu were engaged in cultivating or growing them with their own labor.

In full view of the statement as to Gap evidence No. 2 and the testimony of new witnessB, the plaintiff's husband, after acquiring the land of this case by auction on November 25, 1993, the plaintiff acquired the land by inheritance through consultation and division as the plaintiff died on October 24, 1999, and registered as a resident of this case from March 27, 2006 to October 16, 2007, which is the same city as the location of the land of this case, from March 27, 2006 to October 16, 2007, the plaintiff was living at ○○○○○-dong 436, 00, ○○○-dong, 00,000. After the acquisition of the land of this case, the plaintiff can be recognized to the purport that the new witness confirmation document of new witnessB, who is a neighboring resident, was presented to the plaintiff with the testimony of this case.

그러나 갑 제1, 2호증, 을 제1 내지 8호종의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 토지의 소재지는 ○○시 ○○구 ○○동 480 임에도, 망 박AA은 위 토지를 취득한 후 1993. 1. 12.부터 1995. 6. 8.까지 △△ △△구 ▽▽동 314 ◇◇아파트 802-802, 1995. 6. 9.부터 1999. 10. 21.까지 △△ □□구 □□6가 43 □□파트 1-502, 1999. 10. 22.부터 같은 달 24.까지 △△ ☆☆구 ☆☆동 441-5에 각각 거주하다가 사망하였고, 원고는 망 박AA이 위 토지를 취득한 후 ◇◇공사에 양도할 때까지의 기간 중 1993. 1. 12.부터 1995. 6. 8.까지 △△ △△구 ▽▽동 314 ◇◇아파트 802-802, 1995. 6. 9.부터 1996. 2. 14.까지 △△ □□구 □□6가 43 □□동아파트 1-502, 1996. 2. 15.부터 같은 해 10. 28 까지 △△ □□구 □□6가 43 □□동아파트 1-1002, 1996. 10. 29부터 2004. 4. 19.까지 △△ □□구 □□6가 43 □□동아파트 1-502, 2004. 4. 20.부터 2006. 3. 26.까지 △△ △△구 ▽▽동 323-9 ○○3차 비-1414, 2006. 3. 27.부터 2007. 10. 16.까지 ○○시 ○○구 ○○동 436에 각각 거주한 사실, 원고는 1993. 5. 25부터 2005. 12. 7.까지 △△ ◁◁구 ◁◁동 1258에서 전기, 전자부품도, 소매업을 하는 주식회사 AA전자의 대표이사로, 2004. 3. 10.부터 현재까지 △△ ◁◁구 ◁◁동 1258에서 전기, 전자 제조업을 하는 BB전기통신의 대표자로, 2007. 6. 26.부터 현재까지 △△ ◁◁구 ◁◁동 1258에서 의류 소매업을 하는 ☆☆스의 대표자로 각각 재직하였거나 재직하고 있는 사실, 원고가 자경 사실을 입증하기 위하여 인근 주민 신BB의 확인서를 제출하였으나, 이 사건 토지에서 농산물을 재배하기 위하여 필요한 비용을 지출한 객관적인 근거를 제출하지 못하고 있는 사실이 인정되는바, 위 인정사실에 의하여 추론되는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, 망 박AA의 보유기간을 포함하여 이 사건 토지의 전체 보유기간 중 원고나 망 박AA이 이 사건 토지 소재지 즉 이 사건 토지가 소재하는 ○○시 내지 이와 연접한 시, 군, 구(자치구)에서 거주한 기간은 2006. 3. 27.부터 위 토지의 양도 시점인 2006. 12. 29.까지 9개월 정도에 불과하다는 점, 원고가 주말 등을 이용하여 이 사건 토지에서 농작물을 경작하였다고는 하나, 상당한 면적(1624㎡ 중 1720분의 661.16 지분)의 이 사건 토지를 상시 또는 1/2 이상 노동력을 투입하여 경작하기는 어려웠을 것으로 보이는 점, 원고가 자경 사실을 입증하기 위하여 제출한 자료는 확인서나 증인의 증언에 불과하고, 나머지 객관적인 입증자료가 없다는 점 등 여러 사정을 참작하면, 위에서 인정한 원고 주장에 부합되는 사실과 갑 제1, 2호증의 각 기재 및 증인 신BB의 증언만으로는 권고 및 피상속인 망 박AA이 8년 이상 이 사건 토지를 상시 또는 1/2 이상 노동력을 투입하여 경작하였다는 사실을 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

Rather, the purport of the provision on exemption of capital gains tax, etc. for self-employed farmland is to prevent the decline of rural population and to support the policies to foster agriculture in terms of tax imposition by allowing those engaged in agriculture to engage in the long-term agriculture by exempting the capital gains tax, etc. On the income accrued from the transfer of self-employed farmland for not less than eight consecutive years. "The land directly cultivated" under Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act means the land location, namely, the Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland is located, or Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto for not less than eight years, where the residents of the Si/Gun/Gu who are engaged in the cultivation of crops or perennial plants are cultivated or cultivated with their own labor for more than 1/2 of the cultivation of crops or perennial plants. However, it is difficult to view that it is only a self-employed farmer, even if they concurrently engage in other occupation as long as they are directly engaged in the farming for a long-term period of time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du178, Sept. 29, 197).

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant did not reduce or exempt capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.