The legitimacy of the claim that the transfer income tax shall be reduced or exempted by deeming it as being self-founded for not less than eight years;

Since the domicile and the location of the farmland are not connected with each other, the disposition imposed by deeming that the requirements for reduction and exemption of self-arable farmland have not been met for at least eight years is legitimate.

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. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 65,522,520 on October 16, 2007 against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s statement on November 15, 2007”) is revoked. The imposition of KRW 65,522,520 on the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 10, 1990, the Plaintiff acquired 3,207 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to 000,000 ○○-dong, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, 00, and transferred the instant land to the Korea National Housing Corporation on May 29, 2006, and the Defendant constitutes “self-sufficient farmland for at least eight years” and applied for reduction of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. On October 16, 2007, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 65,522,520 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the location of the instant land and the Plaintiff’s domicile (Seoul Songpa-gu) did not correspond to the adjacent areas under Article 66(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for self-sufficiency and residence for at least eight years.

[Grounds for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1, Eul 1, 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is the Plaintiff’s domicile, is located within a distance of 30 minutes from the city adjacent to the Seocheon-si where the land of this case is located, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s domicile is identified as the unit of the Gu and does not fall under the adjacent area

(b) Related 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

The principle of strict interpretation derived from the principle of no taxation without law is applicable not only to the cases meeting the taxation requirements, but also to the cases meeting the requirements of non-taxation and tax reduction and exemption. It is reasonable to interpret or analogical interpretation as favorable to taxpayers without any justifiable reason to the extent that it results in a result contrary to the principle of tax equity, which is the basic ideology of tax law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19163, May 25, 2006). As above, Article 66(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act Article 69(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act requires the taxpayer to reside in the area within the Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland is located as a requirement of reduction and exemption of capital gains tax on the self-employed farmland under Article 69(1) of the Act, or in the area (title 1) of the Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to it, so long as the Gu provides that the taxpayer is an autonomous Gu, and in the case of the Seoul Metropolitan City or autonomous Gu, its residence.

Therefore, it is legitimate for the Defendant to take the instant disposition without applying the capital gains tax reduction and exemption provisions under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case cannot be accepted, and it is dismissed.