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 12, 1988, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land as a sale and purchase, and on July 18, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale and purchase on the instant land to C on June 13, 2014.

B. As to the transfer of the instant land, the Plaintiff filed an application for capital gains tax reduction or exemption under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter “Special Taxation Restriction Act”) with the Defendant on the ground that “the Plaintiff is farmland of which the Plaintiff was self-employed for at least eight years” and filed a return on the tax amount to be voluntarily paid

C. As a result of a regular audit conducted against the Defendant, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office pointed out that the Plaintiff should not be subject to capital gains tax reduction or exemption pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the transfer of the instant land as the Plaintiff did not cultivate the instant land directly. Accordingly, the Defendant denied capital gains tax reduction or exemption, and on February 11, 2016, issued a correction notice (hereinafter “instant disposition”) of capital gains tax amounting to KRW 97,160,370 (including additional tax amounting to KRW 11,714,614) for the Plaintiff in 2014.

Accordingly, on April 26, 2016, the Plaintiff requested for a trial to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on July 14, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 14, Eul's evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is required to reduce capital gains tax by directly cultivating the land of this case for at least eight years on the following grounds:

The case meets.

Since the Plaintiff purchased the instant land, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff resided within the Si/Gun/Gu where the instant land is located or within the Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the said area.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax on the Plaintiff is unlawful.

1. The plaintiff first.