1. The Defendant’s transfer income tax amounting to KRW 93,684,510 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on January 19, 2017.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 8, 2004, the Plaintiff purchased each 1/2 share of the Plaintiff’s wife B land located in Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant mother land”) and shared the ownership transfer registration on May 4, 2004. On the death of the network C, the Plaintiff was entitled to sole ownership by inheritance by agreement division on February 13, 2010. On April 30, 2010, the Plaintiff divided D response 706 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On January 7, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with the transaction price of KRW 380,000,000 on October 29, 2015 with respect to the instant land as the cause of sale and purchase on October 29, 2015. On March 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the ground that the instant land is farmland, the transfer price of which is less than eight years, with respect to the Defendant.

C. However, on January 19, 2017, the Defendant rejected an application for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax on the ground that the instant land was not farmland at the time of the said transfer, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of the capital gains tax amounting to KRW 93,684,510 (including additional tax) for the year 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 22, 2017, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 27, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion resided in the vicinity of the instant land from around 2004 to around 2015, and the instant land was farmland at the time of transfer, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition that rejected the application for reduction or exemption without accepting the application for reduction or exemption is unlawful. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the instant land should be reduced or exempted under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, although it was farmland at the time of transfer.

The burden of proof of self-defensive farmland is.