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 November 24, 1998, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 1/2 shares of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B large 4,417 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the instant land on or around August 17, 201, following a claim for purchase under Article 47 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) around September 22, 2009.

B. On the other hand, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City around July 14, 1977 designated a lot of land of this case as a park site (C Park).

C. On October 31, 2011, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 736,787,280 to the Defendant, which was calculated on the premise that the instant land is land for non-business use.

On April 23, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the effect that the instant land is excluded from the non-business land, applying the special deduction for long-term possession and the reduction and exemption provisions of Article 77 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, thereby reducing capital gains tax to KRW 411,018,590.

E. Accordingly, on June 19, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the above request for a holiday (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The land transferred in the form of purchase by request to the State by consultation does not exist any concept of the public announcement of the project approval, and thus, cannot be deemed land excluded from the non-business land purchased by consultation or expropriated pursuant to the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) and other Acts.”

F. On October 26, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition, and filed an appeal on the appeal on October 26, 2012, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said claim on July 10, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 16, 17 evidence, Eul 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case is long-term execution of the land.