Reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax for self-farmland for 8 years;

The current state at the time of the transfer of farmland claimed as self-arable farmland was a forest with no grass, and there are some parts of land reclaimed as dry field, but it is confirmed that neighboring residents did not cultivate it, and it cannot be viewed as farmland for no less than eight years.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 48,259,860 for the Plaintiff on February 6, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On December 11, 1973, the Plaintiff inherited 6/13 of the 1,785 square meters of AAAAAri 20 m20 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) from KimB, the Plaintiff’s attached KimB, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 21, 2007, following the completion of the registration of ownership transfer on December 21, 2007 to two other parties, including the KimCC.

B. On January 30, 2008, the Plaintiff applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to the provisions of Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9276, Dec. 29, 2008) on the ground that the deceased KimB cut the land of this case for not less than eight years.

C. However, on February 6, 2009, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 48,259,860 on the Plaintiff in 2007 on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the deceased KimB did not own the instant land for more than eight years (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's principal

Since the land of this case was cultivated for about 14 years and 7 months from the date on March 2, 1931, the deceased KimB, the plaintiff's referenced on March 2, 1931, acquired the ownership and around October 1945, up to the date on which he moved into the Doundong-dong-dong-dong, the disposition of this case on the premise that the land of this case did not grow for more than 8 years should be revoked illegally.

B. Determination

The Plaintiff’s testimony on Gap’s 5-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and Gap’s 6-1, 3, 5, and 6-1, 5-2, and 15-1, 2, 13, 14-1, 15-2, and 16-1, 5-2, and 16-1, 5-1, 5-3, 5, 6, and 6-6, and 10-1, 10-1, 6, and 11-1, and 6-1, 13, 14-1, 2, and 3, and 15-1, and 16-1, and the fact-finding results on the military market of this court, are insufficient to acknowledge this differently. Rather, according to the Plaintiff’s testimony on Gap’s 5-1 through 9, 6, 87, and 37-7, and 19-2, it is difficult to acknowledge this differently.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, based on the premise that the deceased KimD cannot be deemed to have done self-defense for not less than 8 years, is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.