1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for the part of the judgment of the court of first instance which raises the following matters, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The "E" of the 2nd five pages shall be changed to "E, etc.".

From 3 pages 16 to 4, 10 of the parallel shall be as follows:

1) First, we examine whether the instant land constitutes land for non-business use. According to Articles 95(2) and 104-3(1)1(a) of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013); and Articles 168-6 and 168-8 of the former Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24356, Feb. 15, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24356, Feb. 15, 2013) the land for non-business use is excluded from the special deduction for long-term possession; where the ownership period is five years or more, the period exceeding two years among the five years immediately preceding the transfer date, the period exceeding one year among the three years immediately preceding the transfer date, and the period exceeding 20/100 of the ownership period of the land, and the land for non-business use is a farmland

In this case, the term "farmland the owner of which does not reside at the seat of farmland or is not cultivated by himself/herself" means the farmland excluding the farmland the owner of which has registered as a resident in the neighboring area and the person who actually resides therein does not do so pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph 5 of Article 2 of the Farmland Act, and according to the provisions of subparagraph 5 of Article 2 of the Farmland Act, the term "self-arable" means that a farmer is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland or cultivating or cultivating not less

However, in light of the Plaintiff’s work experience, work experience, and work experience as seen earlier, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff used the instant land during the period prescribed by the above Act and subordinate statutes.