No reduction or exemption for self-farmland for eight years solely on the ground that there is any earned income.

In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff was able to flexibly adjust working hours while working in the Saemaul Treasury, the farmland area is only 873m2, and farmland is located in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s home, etc., it is deemed that it was directly insignificant.

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

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 270,91,560 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 4, 1994, the Plaintiff donated 873m2, prior to 797 m2, ○○○○○-si, ○○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, 797m2 (hereinafter “instant farmland”) to B on October 22, 2007.

B. On November 30, 2007, the Plaintiff, upon filing a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income tax for the year 2007 following the transfer of the farmland in this case, directly cultivated the farmland in this case for at least eight years, and applied for reduction or exemption of transfer income tax under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010).

C. On December 1, 2009, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the farmland of this case for not less than eight years, and subsequently corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 270,91,560 for the transfer income tax of this case for the year 2007 following the transfer of the farmland of this case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On February 18, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service against the instant disposition, but the said request for examination was dismissed on April 1, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff resided in the vicinity of the farmland of this case from 1994, the time of acquiring the farmland of this case to the time of transfer and directly cultivated the farmland of this case, the disposition of this case which denied and executed the Plaintiff’s self-defense is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff was born in the vicinity of the farmland of this case and had been living together with his father and Dobin relationship, which was a full-time farmer, until he graduated from middle school.

(2) The farmland of this case was the last farmland, which was landed by the Plaintiff’s lusium, and the Plaintiff’s lusium was unable to cultivate due to decretion in around 194, and began to cultivate the farmland.

(3) Since 1994 when the Plaintiff acquired the farmland of this case from around 1994, CC, the head of ○○○○○○○ ○○○ ○3 Ri, and nearby residents KimD and 14 others, it verified that the Plaintiff had cultivated a vegetable suit, such as a fluence, drilling, wave, mar, and drilling, in the farmland of this case.

(4) This EE, the president of the ○○○ Saemaul Cooperative, working for the Plaintiff, was confirmed to have worked in the morning from the late half of 1997 as the Plaintiff did not have a good health condition, and was receiving work credits and instructions, and received medical care in the P.M. at the office.

(5) At the time of purchase of the farmland of this case, thisB verified that the farmland of this case was cultivated by the spawn farmer.

(6) On March 4, 2006, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Fire Fighting Station within the Seoul Asan Hospital and was under the control of the anti-decrimination, and was continuously treated to prevent the recurrence and the merger.

(7) From May 20, 1993, the Plaintiff resided in ○○○○○○ △△△-5, from April 8, 1997 to April 8, 1997, from October 20, 1998, from the same Eup/Myeon △△△△-5, and from November 23, 2001 to the same Eup/Myeon △△-11-1, and from April 23, 2007, from the same Eup/Myeon △△-ri, from April 20, 2007 to the present day, each of the above places and the farmland of this case are located within the range of 30 minutes to 17 Dong 1703, and within the distance of 10 minutes to the Do Do 30 minutes (from 4 minutes to 10 minutes).

(8) From 1996 to 2007, KimFF, operating ○○ Agricultural Product, verified that the Plaintiff purchased agricultural materials from ○○ Agricultural Product and disbursed KRW 1.4 million at its expense.

(9) According to the “major inputs and hours for each item”, which is the data of the Statistics Korea, it was investigated that only 14.7 hours per month, i.e., 30 minutes per day, in order to cultivate maws and Yangs from the area of the farmland in this case, the area of 873 square meters per year from March to November of each year.

(10) In addition to the farmland in this case, the Plaintiff has farmland of 90-4 square meters in ○○-si, △○-si, 510 square meters, but does not use the said farmland as a warehouse site, and does not cultivate the said farmland.

[Reasons for Recognition] The purport of the whole pleadings and arguments that have no dispute is three to seven to nine to nine to six to six to seven to seven to seven to seven to seven to seven to seven.

D. Determination

In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff could be able to flexibly adjust working hours while working as a management office at the ○○ Saemaul Community Depository for health reasons, the area of the farmland in this case is 873m2, and the farmland in this case is located near the Plaintiff’s home, etc., it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s self-fluence was done on the farmland in this case from 1994 to the time of transfer from the time of acquisition of the farmland in this case (i.e., evidence Nos. 5-1 to 6, according to each entry of evidence Nos. 5-2, the Plaintiff was serving as an executive at the ○○○ Saemaul Community Depository located in ○○○○○○-si from 1992 to November 1, 2006, and the Plaintiff was deemed to have registered as a real estate sales business on November 1, 206, in consideration of the Plaintiff’s work environment at the ○○ Saemaul Community Depository, the size of the land in this case, etc.

Ultimately, the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.