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 October 22, 1969, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the instant land to KRW 116,890,000 on October 20, 201, on the ground of the following: (b) the registration of preservation of ownership was completed with respect to B forest land No. 325 square meters; (c) C forest land No. 581 square meters; (d) D forest land No. 482 square meters; and (e) E forest land No. 362 square meters (at the time, the said land was F forest before the partition; and (d) the said land was divided; and (e) the divided land was divided; and (e) the instant land was transferred to KRW 16,890,

B. On December 27, 2010, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax by applying the reduction or exemption for self-farmland for eight (8) years to the transfer of the instant land. However, the Defendant did not accept an application for reduction or exemption of transfer income tax for self-farmland for eight (8) years, and instead applied only the reduction or exemption of transfer income tax on the land, etc. for public services, etc. for the Plaintiff on March 14, 2013 (including additional payment 2,502,612) of the transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff in 2010 (hereinafter the instant disposition).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 10, 2013, but was dismissed on March 5, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 to 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) for more than eight years, after he succeeded to the land of this case from G to Seoul around March 6, 1951, the plaintiff cultivated directly from the land of this case before he moved to Seoul around 1962, the land of this case. 2) At the time of the transfer, he confirmed that the actual use of the land of this case was confirmed as "the previous state" as the result of the survey conducted at the time of the purchase of the land of this case at the original state as to the farmland at the time of the transfer, and on October 20, 2010, the plaintiff did not set the farming house because the plaintiff and Ha were not good health at the time of the transfer of the land of this case at the original state, but this was merely temporary closure.