1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s transfer income tax belonging to the year 2013, which belonged to the Plaintiff on July 1, 2015 173,333.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 3, 1980, the Plaintiff acquired B forest No. 9,025 square meters (hereinafter “land before subdivision”) from Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, and the said land was corrected to 8,589 square meters as a result of the precise survey on November 8, 2013.

B. On November 25, 2013, the land prior to the subdivision was divided into C forest land 2,105 square meters, D forest land 375 square meters, E forest land 6,109 square meters.

C. On November 28, 2013, the Plaintiff sold to F the amount of KRW 675 million for KRW 375 million of C forest land and KRW 375 million of D forest land (hereinafter “instant land”). D (hereinafter “instant transfer”) to F on November 28, 2013.

On January 29, 2014, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax attributed to the Defendant in 2013 to the full amount abated or exempted by applying the reduction or exemption of transfer income tax under self-Cultivating farmland prescribed in Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

E. On July 1, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 173,33,510 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant land was farmland at the time of the instant transfer, on the grounds that it cannot be deemed that the said land was farmland.

(f) On August 27, 2015, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and was subject to a decision to dismiss the appeal on December 4, 2015, although the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 27, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion had resided in the location of the instant land and cultivated the instant land directly as orchard for not less than eight years. At the time of the transfer of the instant land, the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land as mountain marisomes, etc.

Therefore, since the land of this case falls under farmland as of the date of transfer of this case, capital gains tax should be exempted pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

Nevertheless, the defendant deemed that the land as of the date of the transfer of this case does not constitute farmland and thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.