The argument that all farmland was cultivated on holidays and holidays while working in another workplace shall not be accepted.

Even if a person works in the form of day, day, night, night, and holiday at a five-day, his/her assertion that he/she cultivated all farmland held on a holiday or holiday in an ordinary manner, and he/she cannot be deemed to have cultivated directly on the ground that he/she does not submit objective and direct data, such as seed and seedling necessary for cultivation, details of purchase of fertilizers, etc.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The transfer income tax attributed to the Defendant in 2006 for the Plaintiff on May 08, 2009 (restatements in writing, 2009.05.12)

The imposition of KRW 116,294,90 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. The Plaintiff was donated ○○, ○○, ○○, 168-1 1,626 m2 (hereinafter “the instant farmland”) from HanA referred to in the 1989.07.20, and owned it after completing the registration of ownership transfer on December 14, 1989, and transferred it to thisB on December 04, 2006, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 21, 2006.

B. On October 20, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a transfer income tax report with the Defendant on the fact that the farmland in this case was self-sufficient for at least eight years, and the acquisition tax of transfer income is reduced or exempted.

C. However, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 116,294,90 to the Plaintiff on December 2, 2009, on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be found to have cultivated or cultivated crops with his own labor not less than 1/2 of the farming work in the instant farmland (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 20, 2009, but was dismissed on October 20, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul 1, 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether a disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff resided in the vicinity of the farmland of this case from the time of acquisition to the time of transfer, and directly cultivated the farmland of this case, the disposition of this case that denied the Plaintiff’s application for reduction and exemption of self-sufficiency for not less than eight

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921 of Oct. 01, 201) and Article 66(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620 of Feb. 22, 2008) provide that in order for a transferor to be eligible for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax, he/she shall be recognized that the transferor has resided in a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located or a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto and has cultivated directly for not less than eight years from the time he/she acquired the relevant land until he/she transfers the relevant land. "Direct cultivation" means that the transferor is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland, or cultivating or growing them with his/her own labor for not less than half of farming work. Even if it is recognized that land has been cultivated with farmland, the owner is not presumed to have been the owner, and the fact that the transferor claimed for such reduction of capital gains should be proved by the transferor.

According to the statements in Gap 3, 4, 14, and Eul 4 and 5, the plaintiff was registered as a resident in ○○ City from October 15, 2008 after the moving-in report was completed to 343 ○○○○○○○, Gyeonggi-gun, △△△-do, in which the farmland in this case was located to ○○ City on March 08, 1985; the farmland ledger prepared by the ○○ City on which the farmland in this case was located; the plaintiff was self-fluent of the farmland in this case from around 1991 to 2006; the plaintiff is recognized as a member of the △△△-gun Agricultural Cooperative;

The following circumstances, namely, ① the Plaintiff has worked as an engineer from around 1985 to the present point, i.e., the annual salary received from the above company 17,639,480 won, 18,725,540 won, 20,531,530 won, 194, 23,50 won, 418, 510 won, 27, 6810 won, 197, 197, 30, 197, 197, 30, 196, 410 won, 29, 50 won, 197, 197, 31, 320 won, 198, 31, 1405 won, 199, 3057, 404, 206, 205 won, 205 won, 196.

Therefore, there is no reason for the plaintiff's principal.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.