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. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the court of the first instance cited the "official title" of the first instance judgment as "official title," and the plaintiff's argument is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgment to the plaintiff's argument, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 95(2) of the former Income Tax Act excludes non-business land subject to the special deduction for long-term holding under Article 104-3, but Article 104-3(1) does not mention Article 95(2) while defining non-business land. Therefore, the exclusion of the special deduction for long-term holding of land for non-business under Article 95(2) of the former Income Tax Act should be deemed to have been a private culture due to defects in the aforementioned statutory provisions. (2) Article 95(2) of the former Income Tax Act provides for the exclusion of the special deduction for long-term holding that a maximum of 30% transfer margin can be deducted from the transfer income amount even though the above defects exist.

Moreover, Article 95 (2) of the Income Tax Act amended on December 15, 2015 includes land for non-business in the subject of special long-term holding deduction.

Therefore, Article 95 (2) of the former Income Tax Act violates the principle of no taxation without law and excessive prohibition under the Constitution.

3) The time when the Plaintiff received the remainder of the sale of the instant real estate from September 1, 2014 to November 2014. However, this is due to the fact that the payment of the remainder was delayed due to road security issues. Since the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate en bloc and received the down payment and the intermediate payment around April 2014 and actually transferred the instant real estate, the provisions of Article 66(14) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which was enforced on July 1, 2014, should not be applied to the Plaintiff. (B) As to the allegation of private culture under Article 95(2) of the former Income Tax Act.