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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 201,727,480 against the Plaintiff on October 1, 2015 shall be revoked.

(i) The plaintiff acquired in sequence from March 9, 2002 to March 19, 2003 00 :00 :00 :00 :305

The Defendant filed an application for full reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on December 31, 2012, on the ground that: (a) a total of 1,478.33 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from February 17, 2012 to November 7, 2012; and (b) an application for full reduction or exemption of capital gains tax was made on the ground that the Defendant filed a report on capital gains tax reverting to the year 2012 on December 31, 2012 and constitutes farmland around eight years.

Shebly Defendant against the Plaintiff on October 6, 2015, for the purpose of farmland reduction and exemption for eight years, a capital gains tax reduction and exemption.

calculated tax amount of KRW 203,190,890 (calculated amount) of the transfer income tax for the year 2012, on the ground that the case was not prepared.

157,345,377 + Additional tax amounting to KRW 4,259,134 + Additional tax amounting to 41,586,383, and amounting to less than KRW 2) was corrected and imposed.

Consolidated Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the disposition of the instant case and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 22, 2015.

However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the above appeal on May 19, 2016.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(i) Transfer income tax under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

To constitute farmland for 8 years subject to reduction or exemption of the amount, the land shall be farmland as of the date of transfer; and

The purchaser shall directly cultivate (referring to the cultivation of crops on his/her own land, or cultivation of at least 1/2 of agricultural works with the labor force of a machine) for at least eight years from the time of acquisition to the time of transfer (referring to the full-time cultivation of crops on his/her own farmland, or cultivation of at least 1/2 of agricultural works with the labor force of a machine).

D. As seen below, it is determined that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for the self-defense of 8 years.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion of this case is without merit.

First, the plaintiff asserts that he was a dry field farmer in the land of this case for about 10 years.

BB,CC, and D’s various written confirmations (Evidence Nos. 3, 6, 17-1 through 4, 18-1, and 4), property tax assessment statements (Evidence No. 4), various simplified receipts (Evidence No. 5-1 through 6, 7-1 through 14, 16-1 through 4), and the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland (Evidence No. 16-1 through 4) are submitted as data. However, it is difficult to acknowledge the fact that the property tax imposed or the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland for about 10 years only submitted various written confirmations or simplified receipts that can be easily secured through the neighbors without presenting all the objective evidentiary materials, and unless other objective evidentiary materials are supported by the credibility of each of the above evidence, it is difficult to prove the fact that the whole amount of the capital gains tax has been reduced or exempted, but it is difficult to prove the fact that it has been lost easily due to the plaintiff’s loss of such evidence (the plaintiff’s loss of such evidence).

Second, prior to the disposition of the instant case, the public official in charge of the Defendant is from March 31, 2015 to April 19, 2015.

on-site investigation. At the time, the investigation completion report (Evidence (Evidence (Evidence (A) No. 3) confirms the site.

F. The farmland at the time of transfer is unclear, and the airline shooting taken in 2008 shall form only a part of the farmland.

(1) In the case of an airline taken thereafter, most of them are used in the site or in the open space.

Agricultural works in this case on the land of this case as a result of confirmation of trace of the building owner and lessee of a nearby restaurant.

It is understood that water had not been cultivated and that it had been used as a field yard immediately before the transfer;

2011. Price of the instant land is high due to the occurrence of flood around 2011.

state that the owner of the building was not at sight and that the owner of the building was confirmed. As above, it is stated that the building owner was not at sight.

The report on the completion of the investigation contains relatively detailed content of the investigation.

Since the contents are compared and analyzed with the video, the contents are trustable.

Third, according to the aerial photography from 2007 to 2013 (1 to 7 of the evidence No. 8),

In the land of this case, two unfolded roads of the shape, which had been drawn in the past for a few years, and the left side of the land of this case.

The roads were cement packaging around 2013, and waste materials were used on the wide area depending on the two roads.

The land of this case was separated, and the right side of the land of this case is a mountain, and the left side is a restaurant for a long time.

Water and parking lots and access roads were located, and the lower side of the instant land is the road.

In recent years, waste materials were stored in the first land. The land and the land in this case as above.

In light of the form of use of the surrounding land, most of the land in this case has been several years ago.

It seems that it has been used as an open site and access road until the time of transfer.

Fourth, even if the Plaintiff did not have the ability to acquire the land of this case, the Plaintiff is unreasonably loaned.

H. The assertion that the land of this case was acquired (the preparatory documents dated April 6, 2017) and the above preparatory documents are in the above preparatory documents.

The attached loan application form (No. 13) states that although the Plaintiff resided in a monthly rent house (a multi-household, 50 square meters), a large amount of 270 million won or more in the HH cooperative was applied for a loan as a loan for debt repayment, while the Plaintiff only obtained a daily wage from many companies from 2008 to 2013 (a evidence No. 9-3), and the Plaintiff’s husband (BY) obtained a Class A wage from the SS Cooperatives Federation and the YY Distribution Co.,, Ltd. from 2002 to 2004, it is difficult to exclude the possibility of the Plaintiff from paying the principal and interest of the loan by making use of the land of this case as income in order to pay a large amount of principal and interest of this case (a evidence No. 10-5).

Fifth, in order to cultivate crops that are living things in the instant land, which is 1,478.33 square meters or less,

Many hours and efforts are needed, and the plaintiff and her husband have long-term employment income, etc. as above.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff obtained full-time engaged in the cultivation of crops on the instant land.

It is deemed that he had cultivated directly not less than 1/2 of the farming work or not less than 1/2 of the farming work with his own labor.

It is difficult (only to obtain the loan and interest of the principal and interest of the land of this case as a field yard, etc.)

if other income is not repaid by income, such other income shall not be paid by

It may be more hindered in recognizing the room.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.