1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired, on the grounds of sale, ① 387 square meters prior to Osan-si, ② 896 square meters prior to C, ③ D forest 2,743 square meters, ④ E forest 4,467 square meters, ⑤ F forest 268 square meters, ⑤ F forest 268 square meters on November 4, 1987, and transferred on April 4, 2014.

B. The Plaintiff reported a transfer income tax base to the Defendant on June 30, 2014 under the Protection of Military Installations Act by the method of deducting the special deduction for long-term possession from gains on transfer of each parcel of land, the use of which is limited under the Protection of Military Installations Act, on the premise that the land is not deemed land for non-business use. On May 19, 2015, the Plaintiff reported a revised tax base of transfer income tax in the same manner on the premise that ① 380 square meters of land among land, ② 34 square meters of land, ③ 1,908 square meters of land among land, ④ 1,306 square meters of land, ④ 1,306 square meters of land among land, ⑤ total 4,053 square meters of land among land (hereinafter “instant land”) was designated as land for non-business use from November 24, 2003 to land scheduled for urban planning facilities from that time.

C. However, on the premise that the instant land still constitutes non-business land, the Defendant denied the deduction of special deduction for long-term possession from each transfer margin, and rendered a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 273,130,010 on the Plaintiff in July 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on November 5, 2015, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on May 2, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, and the purport of Gap's evidence 1 to 4 as well as the whole argument.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion-based land was designated as a road site for urban planning facilities on November 24, 2003, construction of buildings or installation of structures has been prohibited.

Therefore, the land of this case is the Gu.