1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Appointor B (hereinafter “Appointed”) acquired on May 20, 2005 1/2 shares of the ownership of 1,691 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and transferred on August 30, 2012, respectively.

B. On October 30, 2012, the Plaintiff and the selector filed an application for reduction or exemption under Article 70(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter “former Special Provision Act”) with the Defendant by filing a preliminary return on capital gains tax.

C. On April 2, 2013, the Defendant rejected the reduction and exemption on the grounds that “the instant land is difficult to be deemed farmland at the time of transfer, and the Plaintiff and the designated person do not directly cultivate for three years or more, and thus do not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption,” and imposed an imposition of capital gains tax (including additional tax) 16,69,480 won for the year 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1, 2, Gap's evidence 9, Eul's evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On March 7, 2008 to November 5, 2010, the Plaintiff’s assertion and the selector registered the business of leasing construction materials in the name of “D” on the instant land, but only registered, and the status of acquisition was as it was, and the Plaintiff and the selector applied for construction permission on May 20, 208. However, the Plaintiff and the selector applied for construction permission on the instant land on May 20, 208, but did not perform construction until the construction permission was revoked on April 14, 2010. The Plaintiff and the selector was paid the farmland preservation charges paid at the time of filing an application for the construction permission on May 2010. The Defendant issued the instant disposition on the basis of only the facts and statements different from that of neighboring residents who filed a civil petition and a petition against the Plaintiff and the selector several times, but the Plaintiff and the select were within 20 minutes of the instant land from home to the instant land.