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

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following changes and additions among the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

○ It cannot be deemed that a direct cultivation under Article 98 of the Income Tax Act was made from 7 to 6 o.e., the 5th parallel parallel and 6 o.e., the following modifications:

Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9276, Dec. 29, 2008; hereinafter the same applies) provides that the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the transfer income tax shall be reduced for the income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the land which is subject to the taxation of agricultural income tax, which is directly cultivated by a resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in a location of the land for eight years or longer. Thus, the taxpayer shall be deemed to bear the burden of proving that he/she satisfies the requirements for exemption of the transfer income tax because he/she falls under the "person who resides in and cultivates directly in a location of the land mentioned in the flag" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du8443, Dec. 23, 2005); while Article 98 of the Income Tax Act and Article 162(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provide that the date of acquisition shall be the date of liquidation, but if the date of liquidation is unclear.

In light of these legal principles, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid the purchase price on March 5, 1970 for the farmland of this case 1, 2, 3, and 6 on whether the purchase price was liquidated on March 5, 1970; the fact that the ownership transfer registration was made on March 5, 1970 under the Act on Special Measures for the Management of Farmland of this case; and each of the entries in Gap evidence 9-16, 18, 20, A, 13, 18, uuu300 No. 21-1, 12, uuu300, and 26-1, respectively; since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid the purchase price on March 5, 1970, Article 98 of the Income Tax Act; and Article 162 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on March 19, 198, the Plaintiff could not be viewed as the Seoul-dong farmland of this case on its own own date.

○7 Change of the Special Tax Treatment Control Act into the former Special Tax Treatment Control Act of 8 10 Do-14 Do-14

O Additional Judgment

『원고는, 이 사건 제1,2,3,6 각 농지를 1970. 3. 5.부터 소유의 의사로 평온 � 공연 하게 20년간 점유하여 시효취득하였으므로, 소득세법 시행령 제162조 제1항 제6호에 따라 점유개시일인 1970. 3. 5.을 위 각 농지의 취득시기로 보아야 한다고 주장한다.

Therefore, in calculating gains on the transfer of assets, Article 98 of the Income Tax Act, and Article 162 (1) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that when acquiring the ownership of real estate pursuant to Article 245 (1) of the Civil Act, the date the possession of the real estate is commenced shall be deemed the time of acquisition. However, each farmland is subject to the application of Article 162 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, not Article 162 (1) 6 of the Income Tax Act, since the transfer registration of ownership is not renewed due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription pursuant to Article 245 (1) of the Civil Act, but the transfer registration of ownership is made pursuant to the Act on Special Measures, not Article 162 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and as a result,

2. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be this.

As the conclusion is justified, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.