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

A. On November 26, 1999, the Plaintiff acquired 1,286 (hereinafter “the previous farmland of this case”) from the OOO 000,000,000 OOO OOO of Busan-gun, and the said farmland was expropriated in the Busan Urban Corporation on December 21, 2007.

B. On February 29, 2008, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax to the Defendant on February 29, 2008, and filed a preliminary return on the transfer income tax by reducing 100% of the calculated tax amount by 36,795, and 00 won by reducing the amount of the previous farmland under Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

C. On February 1, 2011, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 47,547,560,560 (the determined tax amount of KRW 36,795,822 + penalty tax of KRW 10,751,739, KRW 739, KRW 10) on the ground that the Plaintiff applied for reduction or exemption pursuant to Article 70 of the Act on the Special Taxation, but does not meet the requirements for the acquisition of new substitute farmland within two years and those for three years or more (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 11, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on April 28, 2011.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 1, 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) On December 11, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired OO 00 O0 O0 O0 1,355 (hereinafter “the substitute farmland of this case”) following the expropriation of the previous farmland of this case. However, even though the Plaintiff agreed with HaE, the owner of the land, who was the former owner, to remove the passage way opened without permission, agreed to sell the substitute farmland of this case to the Plaintiff and file a complaint against DoD for fraud without notifying the Plaintiff, while selling the substitute farmland of this case to the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the Plaintiff returned the purchase price according to the adjustment of the above court, and terminated the sales contract of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot deprive the effect of reduction or exemption due to acquisition of the substitute land of this case, because it was not arbitrarily disposed of by the Plaintiff.

2) In addition, on February 28, 201, the time when the substitute farmland in this case was returned, the acquisition of 00 to 774 OO-gun in Busan was made on February 28, 201.

3) In light of the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides, “Where a person who has cultivated farmland while residing in the former farmland for not less than three years from the date of transfer thereof (two years from the date of acquisition by consultation and expropriation under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects and expropriation under the said Act) and has cultivated land directly by a resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree, which is subject to agricultural income tax (including non-taxation, reduction and exemption, and small-amount collection) due to the necessity for farming, shall reduce or exempt the tax amount equivalent to 10/100 of the transfer income tax on the income accruing from substituted land of the agricultural land falling under the cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree.” Article 67(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides, “Where he/she acquired farmland within three years from the date of acquisition by new farmland, and has cultivated it while residing in the new farmland for not less than three years.” It shall not be deemed that the interpretation of tax reduction or exemption requirements or exemption requirements under the principle of no taxation without the principle of no taxation without the law without the law without law without exception.

2) We return to the instant case.

A) According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 5, witness ParkF's testimony, the plaintiff purchased the instant substitute farmland from DaD on December 11, 2009. However, even after DoD was notified that it would be restored to its original state, such as removing cement packaging installed at will from YG through YG, it was concealed, sold the instant substitute farmland to the plaintiff and received KRW 85 million for fraud. Upon the plaintiff's lawsuit, the Busan District Court's Dong Branch 2010Kadan36410 for the return of the purchase price to the plaintiff, Busan District Court's decision on July 20, 2010 that the plaintiff was ordered to receive KRW 89 million from DoD and the conciliation was concluded to cancel the said sales contract, and that the plaintiff again purchased the instant substitute farmland on February 28, 201, OO374, OO74 on July 27, 2011.

B) However, from December 21, 2007 where the previous land was expropriated, the Plaintiff acquired the substitute land of this case on December 11, 2009, which was within two years as stipulated by law, from December 21, 2007. However, as long as the contract for acquiring the substitute land of this case was rescinded on July 20, 2010, the Plaintiff would not be deemed to have acquired the substitute land of this case from the date of cancellation of the contract for acquiring the substitute land of this case, but from the date of the seller’s fraud, the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have acquired the substitute land of this case from the date of cancellation of the contract for acquiring the substitute land of this case, unless the Plaintiff acquired another substitute land of this case from December 21, 2007 to December 21, 2007, since the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have acquired the substitute land of this case from the date of cancellation of the contract for acquiring the substitute land of this case, the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have acquired the substitute land of this case within the previous one year after its cancellation.

4) Therefore, the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax on the Plaintiff is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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