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 of the court of first instance, such as the quoted of the judgment, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part pertaining to “3. Conclusion,” and including the attached Form), except to supplement or add the judgment as follows 2. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

2. The supplementary and additional Plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case by the Defendant is unlawful, since it did not recognize the land of this case as farmland subject to the separate taxation of general aggregate taxation but imposed property tax by applying the tax rate of general aggregate taxation, etc., although it did not recognize the land of this case as farmland subject to the separate taxation of general aggregate taxation after acquiring the farmland ledger for three years, which is the period of compulsory farming.

The rice field, paddy field, field, and orchard subject to separate taxation is required to be at least the actual status of the land used for cultivating crops or growing perennial plants, regardless of the land category registered on the public register, and the site for the attached facilities connected thereto. However, the plaintiff spawned the bean, and the plaintiff spawd it.

There is a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the author did not submit specific and objective evidence about the farming or farming.

Furthermore, as the plaintiff's assertion, 30 pine trees remain in 2010.

According to the statements and images of Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the land of this case seems to have been left neglected as it is not actually being used in farming in the state of a miscellaneous land where it is not actually being used in farming for a long period of time.

In addition, even though the plaintiff alleged that pine trees are continuously dead, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff did not submit the details of purchase of fertilizers to grow well, and that he did not possess dead tree, and that he did spawn a farmer's house. The part of the site is the area.