1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s transfer income tax of KRW 14,105,972 against the Plaintiff on February 25, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 23, 1990, the Plaintiff purchased a rice field B 523m2 in Seongbuk-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, and merged the 67m3m2, a neighboring farmland, on August 7, 2003.

The Daejeon Sung-gu Daejeon Seo-gu B 590 square meters was divided into D on August 1, 2013, and only 486 square meters left (hereinafter “instant land”), and the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the instant land on September 5, 2014, on the ground of sale on September 1, 2014 to Busan P&D Co., Ltd. on the ground that it was divided into D on August 1, 2013.

(Transaction Price 305,812,000). (b)

(1) On September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff calculated the tax amount reduced or exempted as KRW 29,858,108 on the basis of the standard market price of “ December 28, 2011,” which is attached to the land of this case to be incorporated into the residential area, etc., and reported the transfer income tax to the Defendant

B. On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff calculated the tax amount reduced or exempted by applying the standard market price of the “64,080,” which was the date of the designation of the land scheduled for substitution as to the instant land, to the Defendant on December 31, 2014, and filed a request for correction to refund the excess capital gains tax amounting to KRW 14,105,972 (=43,964,080 - 29,858,108).

C. On February 25, 2015, the Defendant rendered a refusal disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff that “the first declaration is deemed reasonable and the Plaintiff’s request for correction is not accepted” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for an inquiry to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on November 10, 2015.

【Ground for recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In the case of the instant land asserted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was designated as a planned land substitution pursuant to the Special Act on Promotion of Special Research and Development Zones (hereinafter “Special Act on Special Research and Development Zones”) as one of at least eight years and was transferred within three years from the date of such designation, the proviso to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”).