The contents of the judgment are the same as attachment.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant’s transfer income tax of 85,048,080 won for the Plaintiff on September 6, 2017 (additional tax)

(including) revoke the disposition of imposition.

A. On February 7, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on 00 ○○-dong 302 ○○-dong, 3980 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) due to inheritance from CCC, a father, and on 12, 2016.

20. The instant land was transferred.

B. When filing a preliminary return of capital gains tax on the instant land, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-farmland for at least eight years under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act with the Defendant

". The Defendant: (a) conducted an investigation of capital gains tax from May 10, 2017 to February 24, 2017; and (b) deemed that the instant land does not constitute “self-arable farmland for at least eight years” subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax; (c) on September 6, 2017, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of capital gains tax of KRW 85,048,080 (including additional tax) for the year 2016 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and (d) on November 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Plaintiff was dismissed on February 14, 2018.

Facts that there is no dispute about recognition, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 through 5, all pleadings and arguments

Purport

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On December 10, 2007, the Plaintiff’s father CCC acquired the instant land and led the farmer, and from around 2011 to ○○ Agricultural Cooperatives, the Plaintiff was working for the farmer by using weekends, scams, and scams. After his father succeeded to the instant land from his father, the Plaintiff directly cultivated agricultural products on farmland owned by DoDD and on the instant land (i.e., before and after his departure, after his weekends and vacations were used, and Dodddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that “Any income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree among land cultivated directly by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree residing in the seat of farmland for at least eight years by means prescribed by Presidential Decree” shall be 100/100 of capital gains tax

Article 66(13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26959, Feb. 5, 2016) provides that “The direct cultivation in the manner prescribed by Presidential Decree” means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland at least 1/2 of the cultivation or growing with his/her own labor for at least eight years.” The burden of proving the fact that a resident resided in the seat of farmland and transferred the land directly for at least eight years lies in a taxpayer who asserts exemption from capital gains tax pursuant to the said provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 1994).

(ii) the facts of recognition

A) According to the farmland ledger on the instant land, the Plaintiff’s mother, succeeded to the farmland ledger on February 22, 2013, and registered as a farmer. The Plaintiff is registered as a member of the household, and the instant land is included in the farmland owned by DD, and is written by DD’s self-fluence.

B) According to the results of the inquiry into the agricultural business information system, DDR received subsidies for preserving rice income from 2013 to 2016.

(C)DD owns agricultural machinery, such as caters, caters, blight and harmful insects control devices, regravatorss, management devices, and towing machines.

D) On August 8, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, 1619-7, and has been working as the principal agent of the management team (business affairs: the management team’s food materials store management and delivery support) until now. From every Saturday to every Saturday, the Plaintiff has worked for 10 hours a day (from every Saturday 7:0 p.m. to 6 p.m.).

E) The Plaintiff’s total benefits are KRW 33,849,280 in 2013, KRW 34,495,520 in 2014, KRW 36,63,686 in 2015, KRW 39,81,120 in 2016.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleading, and the purport of the whole pleading.

3) Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the facts charged above, the fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding on ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Mart and the overall purport of the pleadings, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13 (including a serial number) were ordinarily engaged in crop cultivation, etc. in the instant land or cultivated or cultivated more than half of farming work with its own labor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

A) In the instant land, rice farmers were formed using agricultural machinery, such as Track and compact scoo, etc., and all agricultural machinery owned by DD.

B) In light of the Plaintiff’s 6 days a day and 10 hours a day, while working in ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the Plaintiff received wages of at least KRW 30 million a year, and considering the 7:00 p.m. hours and 6:00 p.m. hours during the 7:00 p.m. (it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was directly engaged in rice farming by using the hours before and after the Plaintiff’s work, since the Plaintiff’s work at the Plaintiff’s house or work place ought to take at least 30 minutes back to the instant land, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that he was actually engaged in rice farming by using the hours before and after his work). At the same time, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff cultivated more than half of the farming work required

C) From 2013 to 2016, considering the current status of the Plaintiff’s probation from 2013 to 2016, the Plaintiff does not seem to have used the Plaintiff’s leave during the farming season, excluding Sundays on a regular holiday.

D) At the time of the Defendant’s on-the-spot investigation, EE drafted a confirmation letter stating that “I am in Roster with the box of DD (the Plaintiff’s mother) and I am in her possession. I am in her possession.”

E) The Plaintiff did not join as a member of an agricultural cooperative, and according to the details of transactions by the ○○ Agricultural Cooperative, DoD merely stated that DoD purchased necessary agricultural materials, such as fertilizers and feed, as a member of an agricultural cooperative.

3. Conclusion

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