The contents of the judgment are the same as the attachment.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. 7/10 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 203,320,650 (including additional tax) for the year 2014 against the Plaintiff on August 4, 2017 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The part of the disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 203,320,650 (including additional tax) belonging to the plaintiff on August 4, 2017 shall be revoked. The part of KRW 135,927,975 (including additional tax) shall be revoked.

B. Defendant

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

This court's reasons are as follows. This court's reasoning is as follows: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

○ At the bottom of the 3th judgment of the first instance court, the following judgments shall be added above 6:

2. Whether the revocation of the ex officio cancelled portion of the instant lawsuit is legitimate

If an administrative disposition is revoked, the disposition is invalidated, and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012). Meanwhile, in an administrative litigation, the benefit of lawsuit in the administrative litigation must continue at the time of the closure of pleadings at a fact-finding court as well as at the time of the final appeal, and if there is no benefit of lawsuit during the period of final appeal, which becomes an unlawful lawsuit and becomes a ground for ex officio dismissal, the lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition shall be dismissed if it is recognized that the disposition has become invalidated before the date of the closing of pleadings at which the decision was made. On August 1, 2019, the Defendant’s ex officio review was made, and the claim for revocation of the disposition is unlawful as it has no benefit of revocation ex officio since it is recognized that ex officio revocation of the disposition has already become void.

○ From the 3rd bottom of the judgment of the first instance, the number of 6 vehicles shall be "3."

○ From the 6th judgment of the first instance court to the 8th judgment, the following judgments are added to the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes in this court:

(D) In light of the legislative intent of the implementation rule of this case, the Plaintiff interpreted that the direct payments for business transfer should be paid to the Korea Rural Community Corporation, not only to the farmers who have transferred the land but also to the Korea Rural Community Corporation for lease or lease, i.e., to the farmers who have improved the land. Thus, whether the age among the direct payments for business transfer is satisfied should be determined at the time of business transfer rather than at the time of transfer. If so, the Plaintiff’s father, the father, * met the conditions of the direct payments for business transfer * because the provision of capital gains tax reduction under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act should be applied.

Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring any special circumstance, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. In particular, it accords with the principle of fair taxation to strictly interpret that a provision clearly deemed a preferential provision among the requirements for reduction and exemption accords with the principle of fair taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11372, Aug. 20, 2009).

Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "transfer of farmland subject to direct payments for business transfer income to the Korea Rural Community Corporation" shall be reduced or exempted from income tax if it has been done for not less than 3 years, so it shall be determined whether it is farmland subject to direct payments for business transfer income at the time of "transfer at the time of transfer at which transfer income tax occurs".Therefore, in this case, it shall be determined whether it is farmland subject to direct payments for business transfer income at the time of "transfer at the time of transfer at the time of transfer at the time of transfer at the time of transfer at the time of transfer at which transfer at the time of transfer at the time of transfer at the time of transfer at the time of transfer at the time of the "transfer at the time of transfer at which transfer at the time of transfer at the time of transfer at which transfer income tax occurs"* at the time of transfer at the time of transfer at the time of transfer at 74 years of the enforcement rule of this case

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuit of this case, the part concerning the claim for revocation of the ex officio revocation of this case shall be dismissed as unlawful, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff shall be dismissed as there is no ground. Thus, the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, the plaintiff's lawsuit corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed