The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired and owned the instant land on December 23, 1986 and transferred on April 29, 2016, the land of Pyeongtaek-si B 1,655 square meters and C 1,193 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”).

B. On January 14, 2008, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do designated the Japanese site for the instant land as an urban development zone for the E Urban Development Project (hereinafter “E”) as the Gyeonggi-do Public Notice D, and publicly notified the formulation of development plans, and on November 24, 2010, the Gyeonggi-do Public Notice F of Gyeonggi-do designated the project implementer as the E Urban Development Association (hereinafter “E Urban Development Association”) as the instant association and publicly notified the authorization of the implementation plan for the instant project.

On May 22, 2014, the instant association obtained authorization for a land substitution plan for the instant project from the head of Pyeongtaek-si, and on June 13, 2014, on June 27, 2014, the date when the designation of a land substitution plan takes effect was designated and announced as a land substitution plan for the instant project.

On December 1, 2017, the head of Pyeongtaek-si published the completion of construction works for infrastructure of the instant project.

C. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 205,489,050 to the Defendant on June 30, 2016, the amount calculated by subtracting the special deduction amount for long-term possession from KRW 289,151,656, on the ground that the instant land falls under the “land prohibited or restricted from use by law after acquiring the land” under Article 104-3(2) of the former Income Tax Act and Article 168-14(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27829, Feb. 3, 2017; Presidential Decree No. 27829, Feb. 3, 2017).

However, as a result of conducting a tax investigation of capital gains tax on the plaintiff, the defendant cannot be deemed limited to the use of the land of this case as farmland for its original purpose due to the authorization and public notice of the execution plan of the project of this case, and it does not constitute a non-business land.