1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for this judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the reasons for the judgment are as follows: (a) to dismiss, add, or delete part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) to add to paragraph (2), the reasons for this judgment are as follows.

Therefore, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The 16th parallel "paragraph (1) (b)" shall be deemed to be "paragraph (1) 4 (b)".

2. The amount of "the special long-term holding deduction amount" in the 20th parallel shall be added to "1,710,612,623 won".

The "request for correction of the tax base and tax amount of capital gains tax" in the 20th through 21th class shall be made as "request for correction of refund of 650,532,790 won of capital gains tax by correcting the tax base and tax amount of capital gains tax."

The "land" of 3 pages 2 shall be changed to "land".

The 3th 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2

The following shall be added to 3 pages 5:

F. Since then, the part of the capital gains tax that the Defendant rejected on December 15, 2016 against the Plaintiff’s initial request for correction following partial refund of capital gains tax has been reduced to KRW 548,502,326 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), 5, 7, 7, 500, 500, 500, 326 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. The further determination of this Court

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was subject to separate taxation of property tax by at least 2012, and accordingly, insofar as the instant land was used for business purposes until December 31, 2012, which was the taxable year 2012, the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for the period of non-business land, “the period exceeding two years from the five years immediately preceding the date of transfer, was used for non-business purposes.” Thus, it does not constitute non-business land.

B. If the written evidence No. 13 added the purport of the entire pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the property tax for the land of this case in 2012 was imposed separately.

However, the relevant laws and regulations are stipulated.