1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On March 18, 2004, the Plaintiff purchased 310,000,000 square meters in Yangsan-si Co., Ltd. 1,303 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from Yangsan-si, and transferred the instant land in KRW 690,000,000 on February 4, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant transfer”). On April 22, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) deemed that Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13797, Jan. 19, 2016; hereinafter the same) on the farmland substitute land applies to the Defendant with respect to the transfer income of the instant land; and (b) deemed that the transfer income tax is reduced or exempted; (c) made a preliminary return as follows.

(Unit: (1) On December 21, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired 2,015 square meters (hereinafter “instant substitute farmland”) in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, U.S. on December 21, 2016, from 2016, 310,003,00,113,388,000 264,572,000,187,360,360,000,000, 2,015 square meters (hereinafter “instant substitute farmland”).

The Defendant is required to reduce the capital gains tax on substitute farmland by transferring the land of this case.

On July 12, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a revised notice of KRW 199,415,200 to the Plaintiff on July 12, 2017, on the grounds that the special deduction for long-term holding was not satisfied and at the same time the Plaintiff was excluded from the application of special deduction for long-term holding.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On November 30, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on April 16, 2018.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including a Serial number), the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion surrounding the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff cultivated 80 share value of fruit trees, such as pine trees, fruit trees, and sprink trees, on spring 2012, and transferred them to the land of this case for more than four years. At that time, the substitute farmland of this case was acquired and dry field.