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 19, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired and owned B 292 square meters, C 2,162 square meters, and D 992 square meters (hereinafter “instant transferred farmland”) for inheritance. On May 17, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired the instant transferred farmland for E business, which was implemented by Sejongnam-do on May 17, 201, and acquired 1,924 square meters (hereinafter “the instant substitute farmland”).

B. On August 2, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the farmland substitute land under Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same) with the Defendant for a preliminary return of capital gains tax of KRW 263,619,00, acquisition value of KRW 63,751,00, and calculated tax amount of KRW 47,183,420.

C. From April 4, 2016 to December 22, 2016, the Defendant: (a) conducted an investigation of capital gains tax; (b) denied the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to farmland substitute land on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the transferred farmland; and (c) did not cultivate the farmland within one year after the acquisition of the instant substitute farmland; and (d) imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on June 1, 2016, KRW 61,84,252 of capital gains tax reverted to the year 2010.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On September 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 1, 2016, but was dismissed on December 7, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 10, 25, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated the transferred farmland and substitute farmland for at least three years, respectively.

B. G, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the transferred farmland was directly cultivated for not less than three years, only received subsidies for rice income in 2007 and 2008 on the transferred farmland for convenience, and the Plaintiff’s own farmland for not less than three years.