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

A. On March 9, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired the said land and buildings as the cause of consultation and division inheritance of the cement tank and 213.59 square meters of the 2nd floor of the cement tank and the 2nd floor of the 2nd roof in Gangnam-gu, Seoul and the above ground brick structure (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

On August 12, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to sell the instant real estate in KRW 4.76 billion to C, and received full payment from the buyer on February 27, 2015 after receiving any balance from the buyer.

B. The Plaintiff: (a) deemed that the instant real estate held for at least ten years as “housing and land annexed thereto”; (b) deemed gains from transfer equivalent to the ratio of KRW 900 million out of the transfer value as non-taxable gains; and (c) deemed the special long-term holding deduction amount as 80% of the gains from transfer subject to taxation (see Article 95(2) Table 2 of the Income Tax Act and Article 160(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act); and (d) reported and paid the transfer income tax of KRW 208,814,032 for the transfer income tax reverted to

C. However, the Defendant deemed that the real use was not a house at the time of the transfer of the instant real estate, and thus, deemed that the Plaintiff was a commercial building, the entire non-taxable part among the details reported by the Plaintiff was denied, and the amount of special long-term holding deduction was 30% of the gains from transfer subject to taxation (see Table 95(2)1 of the Income Tax Act), and on February 3, 2016, notified the Plaintiff of the increase in capital gains tax of KRW 911,367

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

Accordingly, on April 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a tax trial, but was dismissed on September 23, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant real estate was inherited, and continued to reside in the instant real estate, and used the instant real estate as a temporary business office from March 1, 2007 to January 30, 2015, and subsequently transferred the instant real estate to its original state.

The real estate of this case is an office for business use.