Whether or not farmland has been reclaimed directly for 8 years or more;

It is difficult to see that the Plaintiff was a member of the local constituency due to the fact that the Plaintiff was active.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 51,727,750 for the Plaintiff on February 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 3, 1998, the Plaintiff acquired and owned a 1,104m2 in Suwon-dong, AAri 98m2, and transferred it to Nonparty SeoB on September 20, 2007. On May 22, 1998, the Plaintiff acquired and owned a 97-1m2 in the same Ri, 1,580m2 in the same Ri, and 1,884m2 in the same Ri (hereinafter referred to as “the farmland of the said three lots”) and transferred it to Nonparty 2 and other third parties on October 22, 2007.

B. On November 30, 2007, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax to the Defendant on November 30, 2007 that the farmland of this case was self-sufficient for not less than eight years, and that the transfer income tax

C. However, on February 1, 2009, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 51,727,750 to the Plaintiff on February 1, 2009, on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be found to have cultivated or cultivated crops with his own labor not less than 1/2 of the farming work in the instant farmland (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On March 13, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the disposition of the instant case, but was dismissed on July 24, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff resided in the vicinity of the farmland of this case from the time of acquisition to the time of transfer, and directly cultivated the farmland of this case, the disposition of this case that denied the Plaintiff’s application for reduction and exemption of self cultivation for at least eight years is unlawful

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921 of Jan. 1, 2010) and Article 66(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620 of Feb. 22, 2008) provide that in order to constitute capital gains tax reduction or exemption, a transferor shall be recognized as having resided in a Si/Gun/Gu in which farmland is located or in a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto, and that he/she has cultivated directly for at least eight years from the time of acquisition until the time of transfer. "Direct farming" means that the transferor is engaged in cultivating crops or perennial plants in his/her own farmland or cultivating or cultivating them with his/her own labor for at least half of farming work. Even if it is recognized that land has been cultivated with farmland, it is not presumed that such owner is the person, but that the transferor is the person who asserts the same fact as farmland (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do19319.

According to Gap 5, 15, 23, 24 Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 2, the plaintiff's relocation report was made on December 13, 198 with the Gyeonggi DF Ri 270 (it changed to EEF 270 on January 1, 1986) within the EE-si 270, the plaintiff's relocation report was made on 7th 7th 5th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 96th 96th 20 7th 206, 3th 5th 205th 20 7th 9th 205th 25th 206.

Therefore, there is no reason for the plaintiff's principal.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.