1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s disposition to impose the attached Form No. 3 on the Plaintiff on May 3, 2016.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute grounds for additional collection under Article 178 subparag. 1 of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, since the Plaintiff used it directly for farming purposes by cutting down the brain ginseng on each of the instant land on August 29, 2015 and November 30, 2015, within one year from the date of acquisition of each of the instant land.

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

C. In full view of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff used each of the instant land directly for farming ( brain ginseng cultivation) within one year from the date of acquisition of each of the instant land, taking into account the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by the entire purport of the aforementioned disposition and the statement of evidence Nos. 6 to 13, 15, 16, 17, 21 to 26, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 7, and 12 (including branch numbers), and witness D of the first instance court, witness E of this court, witness E of this court, and F.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that it falls under Article 178 subparagraph 1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is unlawful.

On November 4, 2014 and December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff reported the acquisition tax on each of the instant land to the Defendant, thereby cultivating the hub, which is a special purpose crops.

However, the representative G of the Plaintiff decided to re-examine the brain ginseng of this case after hearing the opinion that it would have a substantial income when the brain ginseng is in mind in the forest of this case from the neighboring persons.

The Plaintiff, around June 23, 2015, posted a banner at the entrance of each of the instant lands, stating that “I are prohibited from having access to another person as the Plaintiff uses land for long-term brain growth.” On June 23, 2015, a public official in charge of the Defendant’s side visited the site of each of the instant lands, and Nonparty B’s business travel tag No. 7.