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 July 15, 1998, the Plaintiff acquired 3,277 square meters as a gift and owned it, and on November 19, 2003, transferred 1,192 square meters out of the above land as C, and thereafter, transferred 1,489.29 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share (5/7) out of 2,085 square meters remaining remaining on January 6, 2014, after which 1,192 square meters out of the above land was subdivided into C. On February 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for capital gains tax reduction or exemption on the ground that he/she neglected the said land for at least eight years while filing a report with the Defendant on capital gains tax.

B. From April 1, 2016 to the 20th of the same month, the Defendant conducted an investigation into capital gains tax on the Plaintiff, and denied capital gains tax reduction or exemption on the ground that the Plaintiff did not actually cultivate the instant land; and determined and notified the Plaintiff on July 1, 2016, by excluding special long-term possession deduction on the ground that the said land constitutes non-business land pursuant to the proviso to Article 168-14(3)1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act as of the date of transfer, on the ground that it constitutes a non-business land as of the date of transfer.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On October 4, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on December 14, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap 1, 2, Eul 1, and 2 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) After retired from office as a public official, and transferred the instant land to the said land, and re-entered the said land with the help of the 6rd village Da, etc., owned agricultural machinery, but it was erroneous for the Defendant to view that the Plaintiff was not self-employed on the ground of false statement, etc. in D’s investigation agency. 2) Even if the Plaintiff did not directly do so as to the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff leased the instant land to D under the Farmland Act. Thus, the instant land is leased from the land for non-business use pursuant to Article 168-8(3)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.