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 April 22, 200, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to H and I on July 14, 2014, and filed an application for reduction of capital gains tax under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) with H and I Corporation by asserting that each of the instant land was farmland donated by Cho-si B, which was acquired on April 22, 2000, and KRW 1,250 square meters prior to D, KRW 1,438 square meters prior to E, and KRW 456 square meters prior to G, and KRW 1,402 square meters prior to G. (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant land”).

B. After conducting an investigation of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff from June 7, 2016 to April 28, 2017, the Defendant determined that each of the instant lands cannot be deemed to have been self-determined for at least eight years, and excluded capital gains tax reduction or exemption claimed by the Plaintiff, and on August 1, 2017, notified the Plaintiff of correction of capital gains tax and special rural development tax (including additional tax) for the year 2014, as stated in the purport of the claim.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On May 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but the appeal was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff purchased and used agricultural machinery, agricultural chemicals, fertilizers, etc. after reporting as a farmer in the farmland ledger, and the land of each of the instant case was cut down for at least eight years.

Therefore, the transfer of each land of this case is required to reduce capital gains tax under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

Although fulfilling the case, the disposition of this case made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is unlawful.

(b) The attached Form of relevant statutes is as follows.

C. The main sentence of Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is prescribed by Presidential Decree, which resides at the seat of farmland.