Whether the transferor, who is a local public official, has reeded farmland for at least eight years;

Since the transferor works as a local public official in the location of farmland and owns farmland of at least 20,000 square meters in addition to the farmland transferred, it is difficult to deem that he/she is engaged in cultivating crops or engaged in farming work at least 1/2 of his/her own labor.

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

Article 69 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 191,831,270 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2008 and the Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 92,634,740 against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2008 shall be revoked in entirety.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired on Nov. 25, 1998, and transferred 00 square meters of ○○○-1, ○○-1,157 square meters in Incheon, ○○○-dong (hereinafter “1 land”). On Jan. 17, 2007, the Plaintiff directly transferred 00 square meters of 580 square meters in ○○-2, Incheon, ○○-2, ○○-2, ○○, ○○-dong (hereinafter “2 land”) on Dec. 30, 1995, and transferred 200 square meters in ○○, Co.,, Ltd. on Nov. 30, 206; (b) on Mar. 31, 2007, the Plaintiff applied for a preliminary return of capital gains tax for the year of 2007 following the transfer of the instant land, and the Plaintiff directly transferred each of the instant land under Article 16 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act to 106 square meters in each of the instant land.

C. On April 1, 2008, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the land of this case for not less than eight years, and issued a disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 191,831,277 for the year 2007 due to the transfer of land of this case (hereinafter “instant first disposition”) against the Plaintiff, and the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 92,634,740 for the year 206 due to the transfer of land of this case on June 10, 208 (hereinafter “instant second disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Evidence Nos. 1,2, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, 2, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is proper; and

(a)the master of the plaintiff;

The Plaintiff, while holding office as a local public official of Incheon Metropolitan City, directly cultivated the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case for at least eight years, and thus, it constitutes the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and thus, the first and second dispositions of this case,

(b) relevant statutes;

Article 69 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

C. Determination

(1) The principle of strict interpretation derived from the principle of no taxation without law is applicable not only to the cases that meet the taxation requirements, but also to the cases that meet the requirements for non-taxation and tax reduction and exemption. It is reasonable to expand or analogically interpret the requirements for non-taxation or tax exemption and exemption as favorable to the taxpayers without any justifiable reason, which results in a violation of the principle of no taxation, which is the basic ideology of the tax law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19163, May 25, 2006). Therefore, the assertion of farmland should bear the burden of proving it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1893, Jul. 13, 1993).

As to the instant case, evidence, which corresponds to the fact that the Plaintiff resided in the location of the instant land and directly cultivated the instant land for not less than 8 years, there were evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 7, 8-1, 2, 9-1 through 11, 10-1, 10-2, 10-1 through 24, and 10-2, 10-1 through 24, and 10-1 through 11.

However, considering all the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the purport of evidence No. 2-1 of evidence No. 2-1 of evidence No. 5-1 of evidence No. 5-2 of evidence No. 6-1 to evidence No. 4 of evidence No. 5, the Plaintiff passed the public official examination of Grade 9 in Incheon Metropolitan City around 1987 and completed military service, and thereafter served as public officials of Incheon Metropolitan City from the date of completion of military service. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff owned farmland of not less than 20,000 square meters in addition to the land No. 1 and No. 2 of this case, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was engaged in the cultivation of crops or with his own labor for not less than 1/2 of the farming work in the land of this case, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to view the Plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case for not less than 8 years, and there is no other evidence to

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim for objection case is without merit, so it is decided as identical with the order.