1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As of October 22, 1969, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to KRW 290,531,280 on June 29, 2009, after completing registration of preservation of ownership with respect to B forest No. 5,505 square meters and C forest No. 157 square meters (at the time of division, at H forest was previously divided, and the said two parcels were divided thereafter; hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”).

B. On May 26, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a transfer income tax on the transfer of the instant land by applying the reduction or exemption for self-farmland for eight years. However, the Defendant did not accept the Plaintiff’s application for reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax on the instant land after undergoing a tax investigation, and on May 1, 2012, on May 1, 2012, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 51,359,950 (including additional taxes) of the transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 3, 4, and Eul evidence 1

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for not less than 8 years by cultivating it with his family since the inheritance of the instant land, and cultivating G, etc. for not less than 40 years, and confirmed the actual status of use as the result of the survey conducted at the time of purchasing the instant land at the original city, and constituted farmland temporarily closed due to the aggravation of health, etc., it is unlawful that the Defendant issued the instant disposition by excluding the application for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax on self-employed farmland for not less than 8 years. 2) In light of the fact that the Defendant did not give any notice that one year and 6 months have passed after the completion of the tax investigation, it is unlawful to impose additional tax.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. On March 6, 1951, the plaintiff succeeded to the land of this case due to the death of D, which was referred to as March 6, 1951, and together with the mother's father, the plaintiff is residing in E.

The plaintiff filed a complaint on November 5, 2007 with Seoul around 24 years of age, and the plaintiff filed a complaint on November 5, 2007.