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

A. On December 20, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired and owned B 843 square meters of the paddy-si B (hereinafter “instant land”) as a sale and purchase, and transferred the instant land to Jinjin-si Co., Ltd. on May 4, 2012.

B. Upon reporting the transfer income tax on the instant land, the Plaintiff applied the reduction or exemption pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same).

C. However, the Defendant denied the reduction or exemption by deeming the instant land as not a self-arable farmland at the time of transfer, and issued a correction and notification of KRW 33,502,400 as of June 24, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

Therefore, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant, but was dismissed on September 26, 2014. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not file a request for examination or a request for trial, which is a necessary procedure for a prior trial.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence 6, 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the provisions of Articles 55(1) and 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the Income Tax Act, a person whose rights or interests have been infringed due to an unlawful or unjust disposition, as a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes and the Income Tax Act, may not file an administrative litigation without filing a request for examination or a request for judgment. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff, who received a disposition of transfer income tax under the Framework Act on National Taxes and the Income Tax Act, filed a request for examination or a request for judgment on the said disposition from the Defendant, without undergoing the necessary pre-trial procedure

Therefore, the defendant's defense pointing this out is justified.

3. The lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.