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 March 25, 1985, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of 2,155 square meters prior to Seoul Special Metropolitan City B (hereinafter “instant land”). On March 4, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on an agreement on the acquisition of land for public use in KRW 2,151,336,50 on March 4, 2009.

B. On April 30, 2009, the Plaintiff made a preliminary return of capital gains tax base at KRW 230,557,790 and KRW 40,000 for special rural development tax, which is calculated by applying the provision on reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for self-Cultivating farmland to the Defendant, and paid it.

After the special rural development tax, 40,000,000 won was refunded by mistake.

C. Since then, on July 4, 2012, the Defendant conducted an investigation as to whether to reduce capital gains tax on the instant land, and decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 120,459,610 of capital gains tax for the year 2009 and KRW 17,707,480 of capital gains tax for rural development tax for the reason that “the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have done so.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 24, 2012, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on November 6, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was originally used as farmland, and the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land from around 1990 to before transferring it.

The Plaintiff’s mother resided on the side of the instant land, but there was vertebrate disorder, making it impossible to cultivate the instant land alone.

The plaintiff operated the frequency collection, but the plaintiff employed and operated the employees together with the denial or the partner (which was not operated after July 2004). The time was sufficient to stop the farmer's house in the land of this case.

In the farmland ledger, the plaintiff is self-fluent.

The Plaintiff’s instant case.