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.

1. The reasoning of the judgment presented by the court concerning this part is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the reasoning of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion directly cultivated the instant land for eight years from 1996 to 2003, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015) provides that the tax amount equivalent to 10/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree, among land cultivated directly by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of farmland for at least eight years by means prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 66(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015) provides that Article 69(1) of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Dec. 15, 2015) provides that “The direct cultivation of land means the farmland that a resident has cultivated for at least eight years from the time of its acquisition to the time of its transfer” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da1969494, supra).

From 1996 to 2003, the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land.