1. The part concerning the claim to apply the special long-term holding deduction among the lawsuit in this case is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 10, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired B 1,500 square meters and C 579 square meters and C 579 square meters, D 119 square meters and E 88 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On October 30, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land.

B. On November 30, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax under Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010) on the ground that the Plaintiff, while filing a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax on the instant land with the Defendant for the said land for at least eight years.

C. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for at least eight years; (b) denied the Plaintiff’s application for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax; and (c) deemed the instant land as land for non-business under Article 104-3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9785, Jul. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same) and notified the Plaintiff of the rectification of KRW 308,218,940 for capital gains tax reverted to the year 2009.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Disposition of this case’s ground for recognition of this case’s existence of no dispute, entry of Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. We examine whether the part of the claim for special deduction for long-term possession among the lawsuit in this case is lawful ex officio.

Articles 3 and 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act do not provide for an administrative agency’s litigation of performance of obligations against omission as an administrative litigation, and therefore, an administrative agency’s litigation of performance of obligations against omission is not allowed under the current law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu4126, Feb. 1, 1992; 87Nu868, Sept. 12, 1989). Of the lawsuit in this case, the claim for special deduction for long-term possession constitutes a lawsuit seeking a judgment of performance of obligations, which is not legally permitted

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion evidence, even if the Plaintiff was aware of the land of this case for at least six years.