No one shall be deemed a self-defluence of eight years, which is recorded as a self-defluence in the farmland ledger.

In light of the fact that a person has worked as a earned income earner, there is a statement leased farmland, etc., it cannot be deemed that a person has been recorded as a self-employed farmer in the farmland ledger or that a person has received direct payments.

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 imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 143,818,670 on November 10, 2008 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 16, 1996, the Plaintiff, SungA, KimB (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) jointly purchased 1/3 shares (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the farmland in this case”) from Yellow Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean 172 m2 m2, 173 m2, 173 m2, 641 m2, 175 m2,036 m2,03 m2,00 m2,030 m2,000 m2,000 m28,000.

B. Around that time, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax to the Defendant on the condition that the instant farmland was self-sufficient for at least eight years and the transfer income tax was reduced or exempted.

C. On November 10, 2008, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 143,318,670 to the Plaintiff on November 10, 2007, regarding the transfer of land for non-business under Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have neglected the instant farmland (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On March 24, 2009, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 24, 2009, but was dismissed on June 3, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 13, Gap evidence 15 to Gap evidence 17, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Since the Plaintiff directly cultivated rice for not less than 8 years from the date of acquisition of the instant farmland and until the time of transfer, it is unlawful that the instant farmland did not reduce or exempt capital gains tax even though it was reduced or exempted for 8 years under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

(2) Even if it does not correspond to farmland for family affairs and eight years, it is illegal that the transfer income tax is not reduced or exempted even though it falls under the farmland for the sake of reduction or exemption under Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, since it is engaged in farming by acquiring the 4,414 square meters of the land for the Doin-si, Incheon Metropolitan City on October 24, 2007 and the Doin-si, Incheon Metropolitan City on October 24, 2007.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) Judgment on the assertion of farmland in 8 years

(A) Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9276 of Dec. 29, 2008) 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; hereinafter the same) provide that in order for a transferor to be eligible for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax, the transferor shall be recognized as having resided in a Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland is located or an area within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto, and for eight years or longer from the time of acquisition until the time of transfer. 'direct cultivation' means that the transferor is ordinarily engaged in cultivating or cultivating rice products or perennial plants on his/her own farmland, or her cultivation or cultivation with 1/2 or more of rice production works on his/her own labor. Even if it is recognized that land has been cultivated, it is not presumed that the transferor has obtained such presumption and direct payment of farmland for the same purpose as 19.

(B) According to the results of the fact-finding inquiry into the health team, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 18, and Eul evidence 18 (including each number), the plaintiff was registered as a resident within the jurisdiction of Pyeongtaek-si by January 31, 2008 after the moving-in report was completed on April 17, 1989 to Pyeongtaek-si 53, the land adjacent to the farmland of this case, and the farmland ledger prepared by Pyeongtaek-si si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si. The plaintiff was written as the plaintiff's own money in the farmland ledger from 2004 to 2008, and upon the plaintiff's application, the above farmland ledger was investigated by the public official in charge of farmland as the direct payment for rice income or the local resident's confirmation, etc. from 204 to 208.

그러나 갑 제3호증, 갑 제9호증, 을 제2호증, 을 제3호증, 을 제5호증, 을 제9호증의 각 기재(각 가지번호 포함)에 변론 전체의 춰지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉 ① 원고는 1987. 7. 2.부터 현재까지 주식회사 @@에 근무해 왔고 현재 위 회사 브레이크사업본부 경영지원실 환경안전팀 조장으로 재직하고 있으며, 원고가 위 회사로부터 지급받은 연간 총급여는 2004년 68,207,310원, 2005년 66,330,462원, 2006년 72,110,942원, 2007년 74,725,015원이고, 2004년 위 회사에서 원고의 근무일수는 242일, 특근일수는 70일이고, 2007년도에는 근무일수가 234일, 특근일수가 48일인 바, 원고의 위와 같은 직책이나 급여, 근무일수에 비추어 원고가 이 사건 농지의 경작 에 상시 종사할 만한 필요성이나 시간적 여유가 있었다고 보기 어려운 점, ② 원고가 이 사건 농지를 취득한 이후인 2003년과 2004년에도 황# #가 쌀소득 보전 직접지불금을 수령한 바가 있고, 이 사건 토지를 매도한 이후인 2005. 7. 20.부터는 황# #가 평택시 소재 농지를 보유한 적이 없었음에도 불구하고 평택시 소재 농지에서 생산된 벼만을 도정하는 **농협 마곡종합처리장에서 2006년에도 황# #의 벼를 도정한 적이 있을 뿐만 아니라 2002년부터 지속적으로 황# #의 쌀을 수매하였지만 원고 등으로부터는 벼를 도정하거나 쌀을 수매한 사실이 없는 점, ③ 원고 자신이 이 사건 농지를 직접 경작하는데 필요한 삽, 낫, 팽이 등 기본적인 농기구 구입내역 등 객관적이고 직접적인 자료를 제출하지 못하고 있는 점, ④ 이 사건 농지 인근에 거주하는 공KK과 정GG는 '황# #가 원고 등에게 이 사건 농지를 매도한 이후에도 전적으로 그 농지를 계속 경작하였고, 원고 등은 추수 후 토지 임대료만 받아갔다'는 취지로 진술하고 있는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 비록 원고가 농지원부에 자경농으로 기재되었다거나 직 접지불금을 수령하였다고 하더라도 이를 토대로 곧바로 원고가 이 사건 농지에서 '직접 경작', 즉, 농작물의 경작 또는 다년생 식물의 재배에 상시 종사하거나 농작업의 2분의 1이상을 자기의 노동력에 의하여 경작 또는 재배하였다고 인정하기 어렵고, 이에 부합하는 듯한 갑 제7호증, 갑 제8호증, 갑 제18호증, 을 제11호증 내지 을 제13호 증의 각 기재는 믿지 아니하며, 달라 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

(C) In addition, according to Article 104-3 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825 of Dec. 31, 2007), Articles 168-6 (1), 168-8 (2), and Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Farmland Act, farmland owner is farmland for which he/she does not reside in the location of the farmland for a given period or does not cultivate himself/herself. In full view of each of the above provisions and the legislative intent of protecting or promoting the leading cultivation of farmland owner, "self cultivation" and "direct cultivation as reduction and exemption from capital gains tax" are deemed the same concept. Therefore, it is legitimate to impose tax on the transfer of farmland of this case on the grounds that the Defendant cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff's own farmland of this case on the grounds that the transfer of farmland of this case cannot be deemed as the transfer of land for non-business use.

(2) Determination as to the assertion of reduction or exemption of substitute farmland

(A) In order to constitute “income derived from substitute land of farmland” under Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10068, Mar. 12, 2010) and Article 67 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620, Feb. 22, 2008) where capital gains tax is not imposed under Article 70 of the same Act, it shall be deemed that all the previous land and its substitute land are farmland, and where the transferor has replaced the previous land as of the date of transfer and acquired new land for the purpose of self-defense (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4567, Feb. 27, 1990).

(B) In this case, as long as it is not recognized that the Plaintiff, as seen above, was self-fluence of the farmland of this case, which is the previous farmland, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s transfer of the farmland of this case and acquisition of the farmland of this case for self-fluence, EE-ri 380 square meters and one parcel other than 3784 square meters, which was acquired on October 24, 2007, regardless of whether the Plaintiff acquired the farmland of this case for self-fluence, it does not constitute reduction and exemption of substitute farmland as prescribed by the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.