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

A. On October 15, 199, the Plaintiff transferred Y apartment 000 east 000 east 0000 to November 11, 2009, the Plaintiff, who acquired on October 15, 1999, and subsequently excluded the special long-term holding deduction as of the transfer date of the said house, and applied the general tax rate of 35% on May 31, 2010, did not pay the returned tax amount of KRW 78,506,080, even though the Plaintiff filed a final return on the standard of imposition of capital gains tax on May 31, 2010.

B. On August 11, 2010, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the payment of KRW 78,506,080 for capital gains tax paid without filing a report, and the payment of KRW 1,695,731 for additional additional tax, more than a total of KRW 80,201,810 for additional tax.

(C) On August 31, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the effect that the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to pay the capital gains tax notified by the Defendant because the Plaintiff filed a return of capital gains tax by mistake even though the said house is the first house for one household and is exempt from the capital gains tax. On November 1, 2009, the Defendant issued a request for correction to the effect that the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to pay the capital gains tax notified by the Defendant. On October 8, 2009, the date immediately before the transfer of the said house (hereinafter referred to as “first house of this case”) was made, Suwon-si, OO apartment, 000,000, No. 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “second house of this case”); on November 4, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant apartment No. 107, No. 1209 (hereinafter referred to as “third house of this case”); on the ground that the Plaintiff fell under the 113rd house at the time of this case.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant's rejection disposition of this case is illegal for the following reasons.

① The Plaintiff constitutes three houses for one household in formality at the time of transfer of the instant house. However, the scheduled date for the sale of the instant house No. 3 and the date for the completion of the ownership transfer registration were November 13, 2009, respectively. However, when the real estate broker pays to the seller the purchase and sale remaining amount on November 3, 2009 without the Plaintiff’s consent, the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract that arbitrarily changed the initial sales contract into November 3, 2009, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 4, 2009, and the Plaintiff actually paid the remaining amount to the Plaintiff on November 11, 2009, which was after receiving the purchase and sale remaining amount of the instant house No. 1 from the buyer. 13, 2009. Therefore, since the Plaintiff did not acquire the instant house at the time of transfer of the instant house, it constitutes a temporary transfer of the instant house to the third household after November 13, 2009.

② Even if the date on which the Plaintiff acquired the instant third house is November 3, 2009, it is not attributable to the Plaintiff, but merely seven days since the date on which the Plaintiff acquired the instant third house and became three houses for one household by acquiring the instant third house, and thus, it is reasonable to deem the Plaintiff to have acquired the instant third house as two houses for one household temporarily at the time of the transfer of the instant third house and to exempt the Plaintiff from taxation.

B. Judgment as to the Plaintiff’s assertion

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) On September 2, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with a licensed real estate agent operating the △△ City Licensed Real Estate Agent Office as a broker and Kang HH, a broker, to purchase the third house of this case from the seller, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay the contract deposit of KRW 6 million on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 15 million on October 8, 2009, and the remainder of KRW 84 million on November 13, 2009. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21784, Nov. 13, 2009>

(B) After that, the seller demanded the intermediary to change the due date for the remainder payment due to the occurrence of a circumstance in which the seller should receive the remainder payment on November 3, 2009.

(C) If the broker reported the transaction contract to the competent authority on real estate transaction, the balance payment date on September 30, 2009, which was earlier than October 8, 2009, was changed and reported on November 3, 2009.

(D) On November 3, 2009, during the attendance of the Plaintiff, thisCC’s model Dod, the above intermediaries, and KK working for a certified judicial scrivener office, they received 84 million won of the remainder from the above intermediaries, and delivered all the documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership to the Plaintiff. At the time, Doddd was the phrase that the above intermediaries lend the remainder to the Plaintiff. The above intermediaries turned down the initial sales contract held by the Plaintiff andCC, and the remainder payment date was drafted on November 3, 2009, and delivered to the Plaintiff and this Doddddd.

(E) On November 4, 2009, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the Plaintiff’s future with respect to the housing No. 3 of this case.

(F) On November 11, 2009, the Plaintiff received the purchase and sale balance of the housing No. 1, and delivered the purchase and sale balance of the housing No. 3 from the above intermediaries (the Plaintiff delivered the remainder to the intermediary, not EDR or its agent, on November 11, 2009, not on November 13, 2009, which was the initial payment date).

(G) The Plaintiff made a written complaint to the effect that he/she had changed the remainder payment date of the sales contract while filing a complaint against the said broker as a fraud.

(h) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the said broker and stated that the Plaintiff had changed the payment date of the remainder.

(i) On November 3, 2009, the Plaintiff’s complaint of this case also states that “I will modify the contract and modify the balance payment date to November 3, 2009, on the ground that I would not return any disadvantage to the Plaintiff, since I would like to modify the contract, since I would like to cause the seller to conclude another apartment contract at the △△ City Licensed Real Estate Agent Office.”

(j) The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the above intermediaries for fraud, damage to documents, fabrication of private documents, uttering of a falsified investigation document, and occupational breach of trust, but all of which were suspected. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff received a revised sales contract by stating that, even if the above intermediaries changed the balance date, an application for ownership transfer registration later than the balance date of the house No. 1 of this case was not made (No. 10 of the evidence No. 18 of this case).

(j) The prosecutorial appeal filed by the Plaintiff was dismissed.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 to 6, 17, and 18 (including each number), the witness testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

(2) Specific determination

In addition to the above evidence, the plaintiff agreed on September 30, 200 to change the remainder date of the purchase and sale contract to November 3, 2009 through the above intermediary prior to the above intermediary on or before Sep. 30, 2009, the changed remainder payment date shall be paid to DaD or the balance borrowed from the above intermediary, which is the agent of CC, and after receiving documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership from DoD, the plaintiff entrusted the transfer of ownership to the employee of the certified judicial scrivener office. Under the agreement with CC, the plaintiff terminated the initial sales contract and completed a new sales contract on Nov. 3, 2009 on the remainder payment date, and the plaintiff's remaining payment date was not made on November 14, 2009, and the plaintiff's remaining payment date of 3rd house was not accepted as the remainder payment date between the plaintiff and 10th day of 19th day of the loan and 10th day of the loan of this case.

C. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

Under the principle of no taxation without law, the statutes on the requirements for non-taxation should be strictly interpreted as in the same manner as those on the requirements for taxation, and it is not permitted to expand or analogically interpret without reasonable grounds (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu11440, Nov. 22, 1996). According to the aforementioned factual relationship, if the Plaintiff paid the remainder under the initial sales contract on the housing No. 3, it is highly likely that the Plaintiff would be temporarily exempted from taxation for one household as two houses for one household, and the Plaintiff paid the remainder at the seller’s request and became three houses for one household, and the period in which the Plaintiff was three houses for one household. However, under the circumstances where the heavy taxation of capital gains tax on the housing No. 1 for one household (tax rate of 60%) is postponed, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s legal ground for non-taxation by deeming the Plaintiff as one temporary housing owner who is not one three houses for one household.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.