Whether a person falls under one's own farmland for at least eight years;

The lack of evidence to prove that the land was re-developed;

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 112,060,540 on July 2, 2008 against the Plaintiff as of July 2, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On June 26, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, 131 square meters (hereinafter “the instant farmland”). On July 31, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred the instant farmland to July 31, 2007. In relation to the transfer, the Plaintiff made a preliminary return of capital gains tax on September 30, 200 to the effect that: (a) the transfer value is KRW 211,50,000; and (b) the acquisition value is not nonexistent in the acquisition contract; and (c) the amount of voluntary payment calculated by applying 22,005,000 won as the conversion value is considered as the reduced or exempted farmland at around eight years; and (d) that the Plaintiff applied for reduction or exemption.

B. As to this, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been engaged in agriculture at all times or cultivated the farmland of this case with the labor force of 1/2 or more, and did not recognize the application for reduction and exemption, and determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 12,060,540 of the transfer income tax for the taxable year 2007 by deeming the farmland of this case as the land for non-business use (hereinafter “disposition of this case”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on January 20, 2009, but was dismissed on April 10, 2009, and became subject to the instant lawsuit on July 10, 2009.

2. Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

3. The plaintiff's master;

The Plaintiff’s transfer income tax on the transfer of the farmland of this case is subject to reduction by 100%, since it was not less than eight years prior to the transfer of the farmland of this case.

Even if the farmland of this case is not subject to reduction and exemption, since the actual acquisition value of the farmland of this case is KRW 105,50,000, the calculation of capital gains by conversion value rather than the actual acquisition value is unlawful.

4. Determination

(a) Book of application for reduction or exemption of transfer income tax under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act;

If 100% of the capital gains tax under Article 69 of the above Act is to be reduced, the plaintiff must assert and prove the requirements for reduction and exemption, and there is a lack of evidence to prove that the plaintiff re-drawed the land in this case for not less than eight years, so the above requirements for reduction and exemption are not satisfied. Accordingly, there is no error of law that the defendant did not accept the above application for reduction and exemption.

(b) Appropriateness of computation of acquisition value of the converted value; and

According to the relevant laws and regulations, in principle, the acquisition value equivalent to necessary expenses shall be based on the actual transaction value, but in cases where it is impossible to confirm it, the transaction example amount, appraisal value, or conversion value may be applied. Thus, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff reported the acquisition value at the time of reporting the transfer income tax of the farmland of this case to KRW 22,005,00 based on the conversion value by itself at the time of reporting the transfer income tax of this case, and the fact that there is no actual contract at the time of acquiring the farmland of this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the actual acquisition value of the Plaintiff is KRW 105,750,000,

Thus, there is no illegality in calculating the transfer income tax according to the conversion price on the premise that the actual transaction price cannot be confirmed.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.