1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 14, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred 133,280,000 won to Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, which acquired on May 3, 1997, the Plaintiff applied for reduction of or exemption from the substitute farmland pursuant to Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on February 14, 201, and acquired 476 square meters of the D Seo-si, Sung-si (hereinafter “the substitute farmland of this case”) as substitute farmland on December 14, 201.

B. However, on May 11, 2015, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to correct and notify the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax of KRW 14,033,750 (including additional tax) reverted to the year 2011, on the ground that the Plaintiff received direct payments, such as rice income, etc. from the substitute farmland of this case from around 2012 to around 2013.

C. The Plaintiff filed a tax appeal on October 1, 2015, but was dismissed on December 23, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Entry No. 1 of Eul and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff owns and manages various agricultural machinery for each category, such as a horse, blight and harmful insects prevention equipment, truck, management equipment, and power-driven equipment, and acquired the instant substitute farmland and cultivated it directly until now. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is required to reduce and exempt capital gains tax on substitute farmland.

applicable to this case.

B. Article 67(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides, “Direct farming” means that “a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland at all times or with his/her own labor in cultivating or growing at least half of farming work.” Here, the phrase “a farmer who cultivates or cultivates at least half of farming work with his/her own labor” shall be construed strictly as a means of tax evasion in that the foregoing provision may be misused.

And this outline of capital gains tax reduction

The burden of proof for "direct cultivation" is the case.