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 June 26, 1989, the Plaintiff acquired shares of 2,126/4,255 square meters in B, B, 4,255 square meters in Gyeonggi City (hereinafter “B, before subdivision”), and the said land was divided into B,223 square meters, C, 2,368 square meters, and D, and 664 square meters (hereinafter “three parcels”) on two occasions on two occasions on August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff reported the transfer of the Plaintiff’s shares among the instant land to E on August 1, 2012, and reported the transfer income tax for 2012,65,56 won on the same day, and the acquisition value shall be 31,236,192 won based on the conversion value, and the special deduction amount for long-term possession shall be 221,956,186 won, and paid the transfer income tax as KRW 171,51,152,1525.

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate at least 80% of the retention period of the instant land; and (b) deemed that the instant land was land for non-business use, the Defendant excluded the special long-term holding deduction; and (c) rendered the instant disposition to additionally correct and impose KRW 102,078,240 (including additional tax) as income tax reverted to the year 2012 on the Plaintiff on December 2, 201

C. The Plaintiff filed a tax appeal on February 28, 2014, but was dismissed on June 9, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 4-2

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) was unlawful since the Plaintiff acquired the land before subdivision on June 26, 1989, and had been directly cultivated with his family’s help while continuing to reside in the vicinity of the instant land and using hours for which the Plaintiff did not work in marina society during the period from August 11, 2008 to New Zealand. However, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land was erroneous as it was unlawful.

(2) The Plaintiff, as an overseas Korean national at the time of reporting the capital gains tax as above, received the guidance of the staff of the tax office in charge, and the Plaintiff calculated and paid the tax amount accordingly.