1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.

Defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 26, 2001, the Plaintiff: (a) at the time when the Plaintiff acquired the instant land, the land category of the instant land on the registry was forest, area, 4,635 square meters; (b) on September 9, 2002, the area was corrected to 4,753 square meters; (c) on March 12, 2003, the land category was changed to miscellaneous land.

(A) On December 12, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”) and newly constructed and operated a LPG gas charging building on the said ground (hereinafter “instant building”). On October 15, 201, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land and the instant building to a lothouse and a stock company.

(hereinafter “transfer of this case”). (b) The transfer of this case

On December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff applied the special deduction for long-term holding under the Income Tax Act to the Defendant on the premise that the entire land of this case constitutes a business land.

C. On August 5, 2013, the Defendant revised and notified the Plaintiff on the premise that “The part of the instant land, which is seven times the floor area of 308.1 square meters of the instant building among the instant land, is 2,596.7 square meters of the land for business, or the part which is 2,596.3 square meters in excess of the above 2,596 square meters of the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”) constitutes non-business land.” On the premise that “The instant land constitutes the land for non-business use,” the Defendant issued a revised notice of KRW 158,55,160 of the capital gains tax calculated by excluding the application of the special deduction for long-term possession under the Income Tax Act to the instant land (i.e., the total determined tax amount of KRW 992,213,513, - KRW 833,658,345, and less than

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On November 7, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but the said claim was dismissed on July 29, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 25, 26, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 on July 13, 2000.