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 6, 1989, the Plaintiff acquired and sold the instant land at KRW 100,000,000 to C on June 13, 2014 (hereinafter “instant transfer”), and applied the said provision to the Defendant on September 25, 2014 by applying the said provision.

B. On July 24, 2015, the Defendant: (a) deemed that each of the instant land was not farmland at the time of transfer; (b) denied the application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax; and (c) rendered a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 10,221,575, and additional tax for arrears 1,002,736 on the Plaintiff.

The disposition of this case is referred to as "the disposition of this case" in this paragraph.

(c) The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 19, 2015, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on November 13, 2015. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute a matter of absence, and the entries in Gap’s evidence 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence 1 and 2 (including each number of numbers, and the purport of the entire pleadings).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) After acquiring the land of this case, the plaintiff cultivated crops from 2003 to 2003, and was closed for about 10 years from 2004 to 2004, and it was for the management of solid water. At present, although the land of this case was left for tree 3,4gs and miscellaneouss at the level of seeds and seedlings, it can be left for the farmhouse at any time. Thus, it is in a state of temporary suspension, and if it is transferred in a state of temporary suspension, it shall be deemed the transfer of farmland.

Therefore, even though the reduction and exemption provisions for self-Cultivating farmland under Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act should be applied, the disposition of this case on different premise should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

(2) The Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax within the prescribed period.