1. The Defendant’s disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 55,023,480 on the Plaintiff on August 17, 2015 shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 10, 1984, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of 2,664 square meters of the paddy-si, Kimhae-si (hereinafter “instant land”). On July 11, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land.

The Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax amount of KRW 50,844,100 as the tax amount reduced or exempted, considering that the provision on reduction or exemption of transfer income tax for self-Cultivating farmland under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is applied to

B. On August 17, 2015, the Defendant issued a revised notice of KRW 55,023,480 to the Plaintiff on August 17, 2015, by deeming that the Plaintiff did not own the instant land for at least eight years, by deeming that the said provision was not applicable.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on January 12, 2016, upon filing an objection on September 23, 2015, but was dismissed on May 18, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) continued from the year 1984 in which the Plaintiff acquired the instant land, and continued to work on the instant land at the site of Kim, Masan, etc., which was not far away from the instant land by engaging in a secondary business. However, the evidence related to the farming company was the name of Nonparty C, the Plaintiff’s mother, but this was the mother’s use of rice income direct payments, etc. for the daily living expenses. In fact, the Plaintiff was the deaf company and the mother was only supported by the deaf company.

3) Although the Plaintiff requested the non-party D who made a payment for the fluoral, maternity, rice beer, etc., the Plaintiff’s request was due to the fact that the instant land was a small scale and was not able to purchase high-priced equipment, such as a fluoral, etc. for this purpose, and the remainder of the farming work was directly conducted by the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not recognize the Plaintiff’s self-reliance and rendered the instant disposition.