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 April 13, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired the pertinent land after completing the registration of ownership transfer on the land of 1495 square meters (hereinafter “instant self-owned land”) prior to Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, and transferred the said land after completing the registration of ownership transfer under C’s name on September 2, 201.

B. On November 30, 2011, the Plaintiff reported the capital gains tax to the Defendant in 2011 and filed a scheduled return by applying the provision on capital gains tax reduction by farmland substitute land under Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

C. On February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired shares of the said land by completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to three-fifths of the 977 square meters in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu (hereinafter “instant substitute land”). On July 13, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to two-fifths of the above land, and acquired the entire land.

On February 26, 2014, from March 25, 2014 to March 25, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 11,029,890 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been engaged in the cultivation of crops, on July 5, 2014.

Although the Plaintiff filed an application for tax judgment, the Plaintiff was dismissed on April 30, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 13, 14, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the land of this case was directly cultivated from the date of acquiring the land of this case until the date of transferring the land of this case. Since the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case in 2012 and continued to cultivate the land of this case directly by 2014, the Plaintiff satisfied the requirements for reduction and exemption from the land of this case.

I would like to say.

The defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

3. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff to determine the legality of the instant disposition is either the self-employed land and the instant land.