The legitimacy of the assertion that the transfer tax is subject to reduction of and exemption from the transfer tax because the farmland is directly 8 years old.

In light of all circumstances, it is difficult to see that a person himself/herself was engaged in scoco around the time of purchase of land, he/she was engaged in gas wholesale business in the middle, and it is difficult to regard it as being more appropriate than the area of land.

Article 6 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Article 27 of the Enforcement Rule of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

1. The plaintiff's request shall be made.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 109,150,000 for the Plaintiff on March 31, 2004 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 13, 1987, the Plaintiff acquired 35-O, 00, 38-O, 38-53, 38-53, 8,529 square meters of land in ○○-gu, ○○-gu, ○○-si, ○○-si, ○○-si, ○○-si, ○○-si, and Do-ri, Do-si (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff transferred the instant land on September 13, 2005, and September 29, 2005.

B. On November 11, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on capital gains tax on the instant land with the Defendant on November 11, 2005 by deeming the instant land as falling under one’s own farmland for at least eight years, and applied for reduction of KRW 100 million pursuant to the provisions of Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and paid the remainder 2,89

C. Accordingly, the Defendant, on the ground that the documents submitted by the Plaintiff alone, cannot be deemed to have refluented the instant land for at least eight years, excluded the application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, and on April 6, 2007, corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 109,150,000 for capital gains tax belonging to the year 2005 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on June 29, 2007, but was dismissed on September 3, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The land of this case has been used as farmland before the Plaintiff acquired it, and the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case, which deemed that the Plaintiff did not do not own the land of this case even though it had done so from 1987 to 2005, was unlawful.

B. Determination

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and Article 27 of the Enforcement Rule of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act for not less than eight years, "self-Cultivating farmland for which the transfer income tax is reduced by one of the following reasons: (a) a resident has cultivated the farmland for not less than eight years between the time he/she resided in the area of Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland is located or adjacent to, and the time he/she acquired it from the time he/she acquired it; (b) a land which is confirmed as of the date of transfer; (c) a transferor of the transferred land must actively prove the fact that the transferred

In light of the overall purport of pleadings, 1.3, 5, 6, and 14, the Plaintiff purchased 3,00 won or more from 195 to 20.3,00 won per annum, 43,400 won, and 600 won per annum, 195.7, 1997.48, 200 won, and 24,00 won per annum, and 3,00 won per annum 96.4, 197, 200 won, and 3,00 won per annum 96.5, 2,000 won per annum 9, 3,000, and 4,000 won per annum 2,00,000 won per annum 9, 26,000,000 won per annum 9,7,000 won per annum 1,56,000 won per annum 26,000 won per annum 3,56,201.

Therefore, the instant disposition that imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff without applying the reduction or exemption provisions on the ground that the instant land did not fall under “self-sufficient farmland for not less than eight years” is lawful.

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.