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.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 9, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired 701 square meters and E 258 square meters in Chungcheongnam-Gun N (hereinafter “N”), F-si, 134 square meters and G 1,174 square meters in size on June 17, 2004, and on July 15, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired 645 square meters before B, 2,208 square meters in C-water and 2,28 square meters in total (hereinafter “instant land”), and transferred the instant land to H and I on December 31, 2012.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax with the Defendant on the ground of one’s own cultivation for at least eight years, and the Defendant denied the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on one’s own farmland for at least eight years, and denied the special long-term holding deduction by deeming the instant land as non-business land, and imposed capital gains tax (including additional tax) 118,392,180 won on the Plaintiff on November 1, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-2, 3, Eul evidence 5-1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) at the time of the direct cultivation Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land, B and C were planted with large trees, D and E were discussed, and F and G were planted with large trees.

The plaintiff was unable to plant the tree originally planted for three years, but it was old and sick so that there was no harvest.

The Plaintiff changed the form and quality of the instant land, planted seedlings, such as humb trees, dump trees, varnish, lark trees, night trees, and shot trees, etc., and cultivated various vegetables through livering, etc., directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years.

(2) Even if it is not recognized that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land, the Plaintiff was holding the instant land for not less than eight years, and the “Plow cultivation” under Article 104-3(1)1(a) of the Income Tax Act is rather than the “direct cultivation” under Article 66(13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.