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

The judgment of the first instance court in the Gu office shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 232,027,730 against the plaintiff on December 1, 2015.

The reasons for this court's decision are as follows, except for adding "2. Additional Judgment" to the part emphasized by the plaintiff in this court, so this court's decision is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion emphasized by this court

In this court, the plaintiff argued that the disposition of this case should be revoked unlawfully, emphasizing that the plaintiff had directly cultivated the land of this case for at least eight years from July 2, 2006 to December 20, 2006, excluding the period from around July 1990 to around July 20, 2006, which was in service as a Council member of the Si Council during the period from March 12, 199 to December 12, 201.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff at the court of first instance and the purpose of Gap’s written testimony and the entire pleading as a whole, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was engaged in rice farming at all times in the instant land for eight years or longer from 1990 to 206, or cultivated 1/2 or more of farming work by her own labor force. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted, and the court of first instance and its determination are justifiable.

① From around 1990 to 1992, C provided the Plaintiff with so-called land as a rent, and cultivated the instant land.

② The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land again from the end of 1992 or from around 1993, which was after C cultivated the instant land, but around 192 or around 1993, the Plaintiff owned the instant land in addition to the instant land, 1,166 square meters, 818 square meters, 7-5 square meters, 1,562 square meters, 35 square meters, DD 181-11 (the later change of the land category) in Cheongju-si, Chungcheongnam-gu, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, 341-22, 678 square meters, 342 square meters, 4,284 square meters, etc., and the Plaintiff did not seem to have any specific reason to start the Plaintiff’s direct cultivation of the instant land in addition to the instant land.

(3) The plaintiff stayed abroad for 64 days from 201 to 2013; the period from April 201 to October 205; the period from April 30 to April 5; the period from May 16 to May 201; the period from May 27 to July 14; the period from June 27, 27 to June 14; the period from September 29 to October 19: the aggregate of the 37 days from March 29 to April 7, 200; the period from September 2, 200 to 9: the period from October 17, 201 to October 3, 200; the period from September 25 to 19: the period from September 14, 200 to 9: the aggregate of the 10 days from March 29 to October 17, 200; the period from September 24 to 19, 2005; and

④ From 1995 to 2002, the Plaintiff: (a) operated the two offices from 1995 to 2001; (b) obtained a business income from at least KRW 100 million to at least KRW 300 million each year; (c) obtained rent from 1998 to 2006 to KRW 65 million each year; and (d) obtained earned income from KRW 880,00 to KRW 35,00 each year from 200. From 2001 as a director of AA Construction Corporation, the Plaintiff was asserting that DD, the Plaintiff’s spouse, actually operated the two offices; and (d) the Plaintiff’s income from rent business and non-standing director, as well as the Plaintiff’s income from directly cultivating the instant land. However, it is doubtful that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land.

⑤ In addition, the Plaintiff’s entry in the farmland ledger, the objective evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the membership of the Cheongju Agricultural Cooperative, the receipt of direct payments compensating for rice income, etc., and the registration of agricultural business entities, etc. are not related to the direct cultivation of farmland, or do not require such direct cultivation, or does not clearly examine such fact. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land in light of the aforementioned circumstances.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.