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 May 2, 1985, the Plaintiff acquired forest land B, 2,127 square meters, C, 47 square meters prior to C, and D 483 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), but transferred the land to the State (Management Office) on February 10, 2012.

B. The instant land was designated as a riparian zone under the Act on the Improvement of Water Quality and Support for Residents of the Han River Basin (hereinafter “the Han River Watershed Act”), on September 30, 1999, and the Yang Pyeong-gu Gun established a “total pollution load control plan” on the whole part of the instant land and obtained approval from the Minister of Environment on November 2, 2009.

C. On March 21, 2012, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant the capital gains tax of KRW 164,450,000 calculated as follows, and paid around that time.

However, the Defendant, on December 5, 2012, issued a correction and notice to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on December 5, 2012, by deducting the amount of tax reduction of KRW 41,112,49 from the total amount of tax reduction of KRW 316,79,823, calculated by subtracting the amount of tax reduction of KRW 41,112,49 from the total amount of tax reduction of KRW 316,79,823 from the details of return.

Details of correction of reported details 878,747,00 won 878,747,00 acquisition value 12,353,119 21,308,931 gains 866,212,404 857,256,707 (1) 259,863,720 of special deduction for long-term holding 259,863,720 x Articles 95 and 104-3 of the Income Tax Act, and Article 168-14 (3) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act x 205,562,499 of tax amount calculated under Article 168-14 (3) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, 300,907,5482 x 41,112,499 x 164,450,316,79, and 23 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted the special deduction for long-term holding of 1st century, and the Plaintiff acquired the instant land for the weekend farm because there was no restriction on the construction permit, etc. in 1985.

However, the land of this case is the sale No. 1999.