1. The part against the Plaintiff regarding the claim for cancellation of local income tax in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

2. The lawsuit of this case is pending.

1. Grounds for a judgment of the court of first instance concerning this part of the particulars of the disposition

1.(c)

Paragraph (1) provides that “The Defendant shall conduct an on-site investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for at least eight years, and thus, notified the Plaintiff of the correction of KRW 35,163,09 and KRW 3,516,30 of the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2013 and the local income tax of KRW 3,516,30 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition of imposition of transfer income tax” and “disposition of imposition of local income tax of this case”, respectively, are as stated in Paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, this shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.”

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff acquired the instant land and cultivated crops such as vegetables, etc. from the instant land for not less than eight years, each of the instant dispositions that notified a correction of capital gains tax without being subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is unlawful.

(hereinafter referred to as “the first proposal”). (b)

From December to August 2015 after the transfer of the instant land, the Plaintiff received guidance and guidance repeatedly from the public official in charge of the Defendant to the effect that “the amount of capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for not less than eight years since the instant land was transferred.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff was proceeding to report capital gains tax reduction or exemption, and the Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s trust and expectation, and the Defendant violated the principle of administrative trust protection.

(hereinafter referred to as “section 2”). 3. It is as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

4. Determination

A. Whether a claim for revocation of imposition of local income tax among the instant lawsuit is lawful, the Defendant shall have jurisdiction over the place of tax payment.