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

A. On April 16, 1980, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the farmland of this case on January 16, 1980, on the ground of the inheritance of property due to the net DD death conducted on January 1, 1971. YYYY Corporation completed the registration of ownership transfer for the farmland of this case on January 16, 2008.

B. On February 28, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same) on the ground that he/she himself/herself for not less than eight years, while filing a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax for the year 2007 following the transfer of the farmland in this case, and voluntarily paid KRW 51,29,406.

C. On December 3, 2008, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 105,460,000 for the year 2007 following the transfer of the farmland of this case to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and on March 17, 2009, the Defendant issued a reduction under Article 77(1)3 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act to impose capital gains tax of KRW 88,853,430 for the reason that the farmland of this case was expropriated as the land for public works.

D. On January 5, 2009, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service (see Supreme Court Decision 2009-035, Apr. 28, 2009). The Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the request for examination on April 28, 2009, and the decision of dismissal was served on May 4, 2009 on the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, testimony made by the Resatisfy Es at the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On March 28, 1965, the deceased on January 1, 1971, and was inherited by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff transferred the farmland to Seoul FF-Gu GGdong adjacent to the farmland area of this case on October 1, 1979. Under the Plaintiff’s computation and responsibility from that time until April 9, 1984, the Plaintiff was cultivated together with the farmland of this case and three other three other parcels. The period from March 28, 1965 to January 1, 1971, the deceased on May 28, 1965, and the period from October 1, 1979 to April 1, 1984, the tenant occupied the farmland of this case for a period from 0 years to 3 years from April 1, 1984 without the Plaintiff’s possession of the farmland of this case for a period from 0 years to 3 years from 0 years to 10 years from 1974.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as stated in the "Attached Acts and subordinate statutes".

1) Requirements for reduction of capital gains tax under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "The tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for the income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the land which is subject to the agricultural income tax, which is cultivated directly by a resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of farmland for not less than eight years." Article 66(12) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19329 of Feb. 9, 2006 and amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307 of Feb. 4, 2009) provides that "the direct cultivation" in Article 69(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act means that a resident is engaged in the cultivation of agricultural products or perennial plants in his/her own farmland, or is cultivated or cultivated with his/her own labor by not less than 1/2 of the cultivation or perennial plants."

A) According to Gap evidence Nos. 4, 8, 12, and evidence Nos. 17-1 and 2, the plaintiff succeeded to the farmland of this case: (1) the plaintiff transferred his resident registration to "Seoul FF-Gu GGdong," which was adjacent to the farmland of this case on October 1, 1979, and registered as a resident until the farmland of this case is expropriated; (2) the plaintiff and HaH jointly cultivated the farmland of this case from October 1, 1979 to April 9, 1984; and (3) this is recognized as having been reduced or exempted by the director of the tax office after acquiring the farmland of this case as a public land for consultation on December 19, 206.

나) 그러나 을 제3, 5, 6호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ① 이HH는 서울 KK구에 거주하다가, 1972. 9. 14. 서울 LL구로 전입신고를 하였고, 1988. 4. 26.에 이르러서야 서울 FF구로 전입신고를 한 사실, ② 이HH는 1967. 7. 15. MM중학교 교사로 임용되어 1999. 8. 31.까지 MM상업고등학교, NN고등학교, PPPP실업고등학교, NN상업고등학교, QQQ상업고등학교, ZZ상업고등학교, ZZ정보산업고등학교에서 교사로 근무하였던 사실, ③ 양도소득세가 감면된 322 토지는 원래 이DD이 1962. 4. 11.일 취득하였던 것인데 그 사망 당시 이마 양도소득세 감면을 위한 전제인 직접 경작 8년이 경과된 사실이 인정된다.

C) In light of the fact that: (a) during the period in which the Plaintiff asserted that he jointly cultivated the farmland in this case and that he resided in Seoul LL Gu; (b) worked as a teacher of a middle school for about 32 years, it is difficult to readily accept the assertion that he cultivated real estate including the farmland in this case; (c) the head of the Seoul FF Tax Office received an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the land 322 from such circumstances; (b) it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was a decision on reduction or exemption on the premise that the heir had satisfied the requirements for self-sufficiency with respect to the land for at least eight years prior to the death of D; and (c) it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was a decision on the premise that H was self-sufficiency; and (d) it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was a person employed and cultivated jointly with H under his responsibility and calculation.

3) Whether the period for which the tenant occupied without permission is included in the period of direct cultivation

A) According to Gap evidence No. 13, May 10, 2001, the plaintiff leased the term of the contract of the farmland of this case as a flower farmer from May 10, 2001 to May 9, 2003, but did not deliver it even after the expiration of the contract period. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the tenant of the farmland of this case and his husband (2003da462965) to the Seoul Central District Court and filed a favorable judgment on August 19, 2004.

B) However, the Plaintiff’s lease of the instant farmland did not directly cultivate the wind that could not be returned after the expiry of the lease period, and thus does not constitute the period of direct cultivation.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.