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.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: "Article 66 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter "Enforcement Decree") 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance [Article 66 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 30390 of Feb. 11, 2020; hereinafter "former Enforcement Decree")] 7, 14, and 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act as "former Enforcement Decree"; "Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act" of the 7th 22th 7th 7th 22 th 22 th 22 th "former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 30390 of Feb. 11, 2020)" is as stated in the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the following judgments to this court.

The plaintiff asserts that the attached net D's land was subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 66 (11) of the former Enforcement Decree, since he/she did not own the land of this case for at least eight years, and the plaintiff continued to do so for at least one year after inheritance.

According to Article 66 (11) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree, when calculating the cultivation period (8 years or more) under the provisions of paragraph (4) of the same Article, where the heir continues to cultivate the inherited farmland for at least one year, the period acquired and cultivated by the immediately preceding decedent shall be deemed to be the period cultivated by the heir.

However, the Plaintiff’s attachment D for not less than eight years by itself, written evidence Nos. 19-2 and 3, was cut down.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff had been self-satisfed for at least one year after inheritance, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.