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 24, 2006 and September 3, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant farmland of 1,782 square meters (the transaction value of 120,000,000 won on the register) and 1,782 square meters (the transaction value of 177,00,000,000 won on the register) in Gongju-si (hereinafter “the instant farmland”), and sold the instant farmland to D on March 13, 2012, and on December 6, 2012, acquired the instant farmland of 1,916,3 square meters (hereinafter “the instant large farmland”).

B. On May 15, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a return on the tax base of capital gains tax by applying the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on farmland substitute land pursuant to Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013) to the Defendant on the instant farmland.

C. On December 5, 2017, the Defendant excluded the Plaintiff from applying capital gains tax reduction or exemption for farmland substitute land on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant farmland and substitute land,” and imposed a disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 198,617,400 for the transfer income tax reverted to year 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a tax appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on September 28, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 through 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff obtained title trust from the former husband F, the actual owner of the farmland of this case, and that the title truster F, directly cultivated the farmland of this case and the substitute farmland and constitutes the subject of reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, but the disposition of this case was unlawful on different premise.

B. First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff is a title trustee of the farmland of this case, and examine the following circumstances, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s statement on November 2, 2005 and the entire purport of the pleadings, based on the evidence mentioned above, Gap’s evidence, Gap’s evidence Nos. 4-1 through 7-2, 9-1 through 13, Eul’s evidence No. 1, 2 and 3.