1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 31, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a report on capital gains tax reduction or exemption on the ground of farmland substitute land while transferring the land of Pyeongtaek-si B, 206 square meters, which is farmland owned by the Plaintiff, to another person. On June 15, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired the land of Pyeongtaek-si C, 1,507 square meters (hereinafter “the land of this case”).

B. On May 1, 2014, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s reduction of and exemption from the Plaintiff’s farmland on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to do so after the acquisition of the instant substitute farmland after conducting a field investigation on the instant substitute farmland, and issued the instant disposition to rectify the transfer income tax amounting to KRW 97,478,03 (including additional tax) for the year 2009.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on June 3, 2014, but was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Entry B as Evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff asserted that since he directly cultivated farmland of this case after acquiring the substitute farmland of this case, the plaintiff is required to reduce capital gains tax on substitute farmland of this case.

applicable to this case.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Article 67(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides, “Direct farming” means that “a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland at all times or with his/her own labor in cultivating or growing not less than half of farming works.” Here, “a farmer who cultivates or cultivates not less than half of farming works with his/her own labor” shall be construed strictly as a means of tax evasion in that the said provision may be misused as a means of tax evasion.”

And this outline of capital gains tax reduction

The burden of proof on the "direct farming" as a case is against the person liable to pay capital gains tax reduction or exemption.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 1994). We examine the following: (a) Each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 13 and evidence No. 1 to 13, the Plaintiff’s testimony alone becomes an objection.