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 June 5, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired shares of 940/2240 square meters among 2,240 square meters in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the Plaintiff’s East-gu, Seoul, and the said C land was divided into 1,409 square meters and D 831 square meters on August 22, 2011.

(hereinafter referred to as "the farmland in this case") among D 831m2, 940/2240 shares owned by the plaintiff is b.

On June 20, 2012, the farmland in this case was expropriated in the Korea Rail Network Authority, which is a project implementer of the E Construction Project (hereinafter “instant public works”).

C. On August 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) upon filing a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax for the year 2012 following the expropriation of the instant farmland to the Defendant.

According to the result of the field investigation of capital gains tax with respect to the Plaintiff, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not own the farmland of this case for at least eight years until the time of transfer after the acquisition thereof, and excluded capital gains tax reduction or exemption pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and notified the Plaintiff on February 4, 2015, of the total of KRW 87,864,270, and capital gains tax for rural development tax for the year 2012, and KRW 81,757,480.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a tax appeal on April 23, 2015, but the said appeal was dismissed on September 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff acquired the instant farmland from B, while residing in the vicinity of the instant farmland, and cultivated crops, such as marine, string, strawing, and spawn, etc., until 2012; and (b) the Plaintiff directly cultivated the said farmland for at least eight years, such as planting trees, until transferring the said farmland.

Therefore, capital gains tax on the farmland of this case should be reduced or exempted.

(b) relation.