1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 28, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased the instant farmland at KRW 84,500,000,000 for the purchase price of KRW 1,212 square meters in Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun (hereinafter “instant farmland”). On April 3, 2015, the Plaintiff sold the instant farmland at KRW 458,000,000 to D.

B. On April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69 (Reduction or Exemption of Capital Gains Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) with the Defendant on a preliminary return of KRW 82,947,657 following the transfer of the farmland in this case.

C. From February 22, 2017, the Defendant’s damage

3. Until December 13, 190, the farmland of this case shall be subject to a field investigation, and the damage.

4. From May 2 to 24th of that month, the tax investigation of the Plaintiff was conducted.

As a result of the above on-site investigation and tax investigation, the Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have cultivated the instant farmland directly for at least eight years, and notified the Plaintiff of the rectification of KRW 108,736,080 for the transfer income tax reverted to the year 2015 on July 1, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 23, 2017, but the appeal was dismissed on November 13, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion directly cultivated rice after acquiring the instant farmland on July 28, 2005 and until February 2009 (the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff directly cultivated rice in the instant farmland from the first instance to February 2010, but that the previous assertion was caused by mistake and that the direct cultivation of rice in the instant farmland was made until February 2009). Accordingly, the Plaintiff directly cultivated rice and posium for not less than eight (8) years from the instant farmland, such as directly cultivating posium until selling the instant farmland.