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 December 30, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired 599,75/2,399 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) out of 2,399 square meters in Daegu-gu Seo-gu, Daegu-gu (hereinafter “instant land”). On November 19, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant shares based on the acquisition of public land on the same day’s agreement.

B. On January 31, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter “Special Taxation Restriction Act”) with respect to the transfer of the instant share to the Defendant on the ground that “the Plaintiff is farmland for which at least eight years have been self-employed.”

C. As a result of the Plaintiff’s on-site investigation of capital gains tax with respect to the Plaintiff from October 6, 2015 to October 20, 2015, the Defendant denied the tax amount reduced or exempted by deeming that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate any specific part of the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”), and on December 1, 2015, notified the Plaintiff of the correction of KRW 49,348,320 (including additional tax of KRW 8,535,815) of the capital gains tax for the year 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Accordingly, on February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff requested for a trial to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on May 30, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years by planting bamboo, bamboo, etc., and cultivating spawn, bean, etc., and cultivating spawn, bean, etc., the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant land should be reduced

The case meets.

Since the Plaintiff purchased the instant shares, within the Si/Gun/Gu where the instant land is located or within the Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the said region.