1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. (i) On November 22, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired 8,815 square meters prior to Dongcheon-si B (hereinafter “instant land”) and transferred it to Leecheon-si on May 24, 2012, and on July 19, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction and exemption of substitute farmland with the Defendant by filing a report on his/her capital gains tax for the year 2012 as follows:

on March 13, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired C 4,866 square meters (hereinafter “alternative farmland”).

Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12173, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 67 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24368, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant land and acquisition of substitute farmland constitute a case where the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to farmland substitute land under Article 67 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24368, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Defendant imposed the “disposition of this case” on the Plaintiff on November 1, 2015 (= calculated tax amount of KRW 100,273,674, Jan. 1, 2012).

x) On February 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service against the instant disposition. However, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the said request for examination on May 17, 2016.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s 1, 2, and 3 evidence, Eul’s 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. (i) The main sentence of Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that “The tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the capital gains tax shall be reduced on the income accruing from the substitute soil of farmland that is cultivated directly by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who resides in the farmland seat in the manner prescribed by Presidential Decree due to the necessity for cultivation as prescribed by Presidential Decree.”

As to “cases prescribed by Presidential Decree” in this context, the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.