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 September 10, 204, the Plaintiff purchased and owned a parcel of land 927 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from C before Gyeyang-gun, Gyeonggi-do, and transferred it to D on August 20, 2015, and thereafter filed a preliminary return on capital gains tax on September 30, 2015 by applying the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for self-employed farmland under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same).

B. After investigating the transfer income tax of the Plaintiff, the Defendant confirmed that the period during which the Plaintiff owned the instant land was at least KRW 37 million was at least three years, and that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for “self-sufficiency for at least eight years” among the requirements for the application of Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and accordingly, exempted the application of transfer income tax reduction and exemption pursuant to Article 66(14) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26959, Feb. 5, 2016; hereinafter the same) and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of the transfer income tax of KRW 53,645,970, local income tax of KRW 55,364,590 (including penalty tax) for the year 2015.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(c) The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 10, 2017, but was dismissed on July 26, 2017. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, Gap’s 1 through 5, and 15, Eul’s evidence No. 1 (including each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant appears to have earned income of KRW 41 million in the year 2007, KRW 39 million in the year 2008, and KRW 37 million in the year 2010, while working as a member of the E branch association (hereinafter “instant church”) in which the Plaintiff owned the instant land. However, the Plaintiff’s earned income for the year 2010 is not less than KRW 37 million, and the E branch association did not begin rehabilitation procedures for the instant church, and was not paid with the wind leading to the bankruptcy. The Plaintiff at least obtained income of KRW 37 million in the year 2010.