2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A. On March 8, 197, the Plaintiff acquired and owned DD 1-5 Ba 11,759 (hereinafter referred to as "topland of this case") from 41-3 Do 41-3 241 (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case") on the same date as DD 1-5 Do 1,759 (hereinafter referred to as "topland of this case"), and on January 15, 1987, the Plaintiff acquired and owned the land of this case 737-109 Do 13 m2 (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case" of this case and "the land of this case" of this case and "the land of this case" of this case and "the land of this case" were transferred on October 1, 207.

B. On November 13, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for abatement or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69 of the former Act on Special Cases of Taxation (amended by Act No. 9276 of Dec. 29, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the “former Special Cases of Taxation”) on the ground that he directly cultivated the instant land for not less than eight years when he filed a preliminary application for abatement or exemption of capital gains tax on the instant land. However, upon the Defendant’s request without recognizing the application, the Plaintiff filed a revised return of capital gains tax on April 28, 2009. The Plaintiff filed an application for abatement or exemption again on May 19, 2009, asserting that the application for abatement or exemption was lawful, but the Defendant rejected the said application for abatement or exemption as of June 26, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition”), and the transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff’s ex officio payment on July 16, 2009, as of 306, 16317.

C. On September 14, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal on December 29, 2009, but was dismissed on October 7, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

The Plaintiff, while running a pharmacy, cultivated the instant land along with his father and wife for at least eight years, and thus, the transfer income tax should be reduced or exempted, but the instant disposition that did not recognize the said fact is unlawful.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. Article 69(1) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning Taxation Restriction and Article 66 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620 of Feb. 22, 2008) includes not only cases in which a person is directly cultivated, but also cases in which a person is employed for cultivating another person under his/her own account and responsibility, or causes his/her family members living or living together with another person to cultivate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu7412, May 11, 1990; 87Nu706, Mar. 8, 198; 94Nu96, Oct. 21, 1994; hereinafter referred to as “self-employed farmer or his/her family member living together with another person’s own farming or family living together with another person’s own farming or fishing force”) and even if the owner of another person directly engaged in farming or fishing with another person’s occupation, it constitutes a self-employed farmer.

나. 살피건대, 갑 제2호증의 1 내지 4, 갑 제3호증의 1, 2, 갑 제4호증의 1 내지 7의 각 기재, 증인 천GG의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 점, 즉 ① 경상북도 ▷▷시 ▽▽장이 1992. 10. 5. 작성한 농지원부에는, 원고의 아버 지인 양HH(1917-생존 중) 및 계모인 김JJ(1934-생존 중)가 원고와 동일 세대원이고 원고가 이 사건 0),(2) 토지들을 자경한 것으로 기재되어 있는 점, ② 원고는 1978 년부터 1998년까지 소외 김KK로부터 농약, 제초제, 비료 등을 구입해온 점, ③ 원고는 1990. 10.과 1994. 8. 이 사건 토지들에서 생산된 대추를 직접 건조하는 작업을 하기 위하여 농산물 건조기를 구업한 점, ④ 원고는 1990. 10. 6.과 1995. 11. 14. 면세 유류구입카드를 각 발급받아 농업용 유류를 구입한 점, ⑤ 원고가 약사로서 약국을 운영하기는 하였으나 타인을 고용하여 농작업을 하였음을 인정할 증거는 없는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때 원고는 약국을 운영하면서 세대를 같이 하는 아버지 양HH과 함께 이 사건 토지들을 8년 이상 자경하였다고 봄이 상당하다. 따라서 이 사건 토지들은 구 조 세특례제한법 제69조에 따른 양도소득세 감면대상에 해당함에도 불구하고, 이와 달리 인정한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.