2. In light of the above grounds of disposition and related Acts and subordinate statutes, the defendant asserts that the tax disposition of this case is legitimate. The plaintiff, first, the land of this case was judged as a farmland manager for eight years and seven years after it was acquired by the plaintiff, employment of a farmland manager, and the plaintiff's calculation and responsibility, so the above tax disposition is unlawful since it constitutes a non-taxation object of capital gains tax, and second, even if the transfer of the above land is subject to capital gains tax, the above specific area notice issued by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on February 15, 1978 was made without the legal basis, and thus it cannot be deemed a legitimate notice. Accordingly, the above transfer was made before it was amended by Presidential Decree No. 12154 on May 8, 1987. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the above taxation disposition of this case is unlawful since the acquisition value and transfer value of the land of this case should be calculated based on the standard amount of taxation under the above provisions of the Local Tax Act.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the land in this case is exempt from capital gains tax is one of the above ○○○○○○○○○ Construction, one of the above 1 through 3 and 15 of evidence Nos. 7 (each of the above 1,3,5 through 15), 2, and 8 (each of the above notification for payment), and the previous purport of pleading Nos. 1 through 34, 1987.3. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the land in this case was used as farmland cultivated until the time of transfer as above was 1978, 1981, 1984, 1985, and 1985, and that it was difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff continued to provide testimony to the Plaintiff for a period of 19 years or more (the above 1978 and 1984) since 198, while it was difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff had paid the above land to the 000○○○○○○○○○○ Building for 19 years or more.

Article 60 of the Income Tax Act provides that the standard market price at the time of its acquisition shall be determined by the Presidential Decree as provided for in Articles 23 (4) and 45 (1) 1 of the same Act. Article 115 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the value assessed by the rate shall be the standard market price for a specific area determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and the value calculated by the standard market price under the Local Tax Act for a specific area other than that determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall be the standard market price [Article 1 (a) and (b) of the same Act] and paragraph (3) of the same Article (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12154 of May 8, 1987; hereinafter the same shall apply] shall be determined by the Presidential Decree No. 196 of the Local Tax Act as the standard market price at the time of its acquisition. In addition, the above provision provides that the acquisition price at the time of its acquisition shall not be determined by the standard market price at the time of its acquisition.

Therefore, if the tax base and tax amount are calculated by recognizing the value based on the standard market price of taxation under the Local Tax Act as the transfer value and acquisition value of the land of this case, the transfer income tax is KRW 18,399,221, and the defense tax is KRW 3,679,844, such as the attached tax calculation sheet.

As seen above, the plaintiff made a non-taxation decision around January 30, 198 to determine that there is no tax liability of the plaintiff, and the prior guidance letter received by the plaintiff merely stated that the tax liability is terminated when the plaintiff becomes non-taxation based on the non-taxation evidence materials submitted by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff believed it and did not make a final return and voluntary payment until the end of May of the same year, and it is alleged that imposing a return and an additional tax on the plaintiff is illegal because it violates the principle of good faith as stipulated in Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the tax authority can correct the decision if it finds that there is an omission or error after the income tax is determined, and the tax authority can correct it if it finds that only the person who was exempted from the final return of tax base as stipulated in Article 101 (1) 7-2 of the Income Tax Act, and only the person who made the return on the transfer income as a resident, but no such preliminary return was made, and thus, the plaintiff's tax payer cannot be deemed to be exempt from the final return and voluntary payment.

3. If so, the part of the defendant's taxation of this case against the plaintiff exceeding 18,39,221 won of capital gains tax of the above recognition, defense tax amounting to 3,679,844 won is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified only within the scope of seeking the cancellation of the illegal part, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 89, and Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.