1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional parts, thereby citing it pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be added from the third bottom of the judgment of the first instance to the following:

(A) The Plaintiff asserts that the business feasibility can be recognized on the grounds that the Plaintiff obtained a total of KRW 502,194,745 as the aforementioned series of sale acts, but the Plaintiff is merely a sale of inherited forest land for the purpose of profit-making, i.e., acquisition of transfer margin from the beginning, not a sale of land, but a long-term sale of inherited forest land. Since the above transfer margin appears to have a main cause for a price increase during the period of holding land up to about 25 years, the amount of such transfer margin alone cannot be determined on the business feasibility only by the above transfer margin), the following is added to the following:

(A) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s act should be recognized as a real estate development act that enhances the utility value of the land as a site on July 11, 2016. According to the evidence No. 12, the land category of the said K’s land is recognized as having been changed from a forest and field to a site. However, the said land was transferred in 2014, and the land category was changed on the sole basis that the land category of one of the land partitioned and sold over 11 occasions was changed after approximately two years from the date of transfer, and the land category of one of the land partitioned and sold by the Plaintiff is not immediately recognized as a business feasibility for a series of sale activities). The following is added to the 6th two of the judgment of the first instance.

(B) According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1-2 and 1-2, notwithstanding the above construction works executed by the Plaintiff, the officially assessed individual land price of the above forest was 8 under 6 pages of the judgment of the first instance.