1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: (a) it is stated in the column of reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of “A” of Section 3, Section 15, and Section 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The meaning of "self-help's labor force" cannot be deemed to include the case in which another person is employed under his/her responsibility and account, and the meaning of "self-help's labor force" shall be interpreted as a grammatic interpretation to meet the self-defense requirement only when one half or more of his/her own work should be in charge of self-defense.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010). Furthermore, the burden of proof on this matter lies on the Plaintiff, i.e., a taxpayer who asserts the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on substitute farmland.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu11893, Jul. 13, 1993). Meanwhile, the legislative intent of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which provides for capital gains tax reduction or exemption for self-Cultivating farmland, is to protect rural farmers by reducing tax burden so that those who directly engage in agriculture can engage in agriculture for a long period of time by preventing speculation on farmland and ensuring that those who directly engage in agriculture can freely substitute farmland.

Therefore, if farmland owners mainly engage in other occupation except agriculture, and directly cultivate farmland only intermittently by cultivating farmland using other people's labor, etc., it should be deemed that the capital gains tax reduction or exemption should be excluded.

A person shall be appointed.

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.