1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 13, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 1,465 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and transferred the said land to the Gyeonggi-do Association in charge of the Non-Party Printing Information Industry (hereinafter “Non-Party Association”) on June 26, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

B. On August 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return of capital gains tax by applying the reduction and exemption of capital gains tax and the special deduction for long-term holding, on the ground that the Plaintiff has cultivated the instant land for at least eight years. However, after conducting an investigation of capital gains tax, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff did not own the said land for at least eight years and was not farmland at the time of transfer; (b) excluded the application for reduction and exemption; (c) denied the special deduction for long-term holding on July 1, 2015; and (d) notified the Plaintiff of the rectification of capital gains tax of KRW 312,762

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an objection and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 15, 2016, but was dismissed on May 19, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1, 2 (including paper numbers), Eul 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land in around 2001 for the purpose of engaging in agriculture after retirement from the agricultural cooperative and commenced rice farming. From around 2006, the Plaintiff continued to cultivate the said land in the above land even after retirement age, and cultivated the land category from around 2009 to the “former” before transferring it to the non-party cooperative.

The land in this case was changed from “the answer” to “the site” as above, and thereafter the land category was changed by the buyer to “the site,” and as long as the Plaintiff cultivated the land in the form of “the front” or “the answer” until the time of transfer, it is obvious that it is farmland.

Even if the plaintiff does not prove his/her self-defense for more than eight years, a certain period during which the plaintiff has been holding.