1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 30, 2010, the Plaintiff sold to C the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) as KRW 540,000,000 in the purchase price, and exchanged farmland.

B. Around October 2011, Kimpo-ju imposed capital gains tax of KRW 78,271,251 on the Plaintiff.

C. Around that time, the Plaintiff delegated the Defendant, a certified tax accountant, with the duty of reporting, etc. on the instant land No. 1.

On November 29, 2011, the Defendant reported capital gains tax reduction or exemption to the Kimpo book, and met the requirements for capital gains tax reduction or exemption to the farmland substitute land, and all of the said capital gains tax reduction or exemption was made.

E. On February 15, 2012, the Plaintiff sold to D the land listed in attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “No. 2”) as KRW 545,00,000 in the purchase price, and delegated the Defendant with the reporting, etc. related to the transfer income tax.

F. On May 31, 2012, the Defendant reported reduction and exemption of the capital gains tax on the instant land No. 2 to the Kimpo-si Office.

G. Around January 2015, Kimpo-ran notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 53,382,879, and additional tax of KRW 15,630,506 for failure to pay due to the excess of the reduction limit for farmland substitute land in Article 70 and Article 133(1)2(a) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

H. The Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 75,914,715 (hereinafter “instant capital gains tax, etc.”) to Kimpo-si, the sum of KRW 6,901,30 of the said capital gains tax and additional tax, and the local income tax of KRW 6,901,30.

I. Meanwhile, around January 30, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 22,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 as to the cause of the claim is that the Defendant is entitled to the full reduction of capital gains tax, even though it was not necessary to sell the land at the time of the sale of the land No. 2.