1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is set forth in Paragraph 3 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

subsections and d.

Except as mentioned below, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

A person shall be appointed.

C. Summary of reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-employed farmland for at least one year after the deceased's self-defense;

The burden of proving the fact that the transferred land had been located in the location of the farmland for not less than eight years is the taxpayer who asserts the tax exemption of the transfer income tax.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7074 Decided November 22, 2002, etc.). Article 66(11) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that “Where a successor continues to cultivate any inherited farmland for at least one year, the period acquired by the predecessor and cultivated by the heir shall be deemed the period of cultivation by the heir.”

The plaintiff argued that the plaintiff cultivated the land at issue of this case for more than 10 years since the plaintiff succeeded to the land at issue of this case, and that the plaintiff cultivated the land at issue of this case for more than 10 years. Thus, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries in the evidence Nos. 7, and Nos. 12 through 16, the issue of this case, namely, the land at issue of this case was first registered in the farmland ledger around June, 2014, immediately before the plaintiff transferred the land to the plaintiff, and the airline taken over during the period of self-defense of the plaintiff, the present state of the issue of this case seems to have been most forests and fields. Although the part presumed to be part of the land at issue of this case was presumed to have been farmland at issue of this case, the area was much less than the area of the land at issue of this case, and there was no evidence to deem that the plaintiff cultivated it directly.