1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows, and the court shall accept this case in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the judgment on new arguments made by the plaintiff in the court of first instance as follows 2.

Part 2 of the judgment of the first instance court and Part 9 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11133, Dec. 31, 201) are different from the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11232, Jan. 26, 2012; hereinafter referred to as the “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”).

Part 6 of the Decision of the First Instance 20 and Part 8 of the Decision of the Court of First Instance "No. 14" are added to the following Evidence No. 15 through 17.

2. Determination on new arguments made by the Plaintiff in the trial

A. The summary of the argument 1) Article 66 (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "Direct farming" shall be engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants at all times, or cultivating or cultivating them with their own labor not less than 1/2 of the farming work." The above Enforcement Decree provision is in fact impossible to measure the quantity of farming work, and thus it violates the principle of clarity, as well as violates the principle of equality, since it may vary depending on whether another person's labor force has been invested while the same labor force has been invested or its ratio has been high and low. Therefore, the above Enforcement Decree provision is unconstitutional, and thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful. Thus, even if the plaintiff failed to meet the "self-cultivation requirement" for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under the above Enforcement Decree, KK, the plaintiff's attached, purchased the land of this case from C on December 30, 1976, and is registered for the transfer of ownership under the plaintiff's name.