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

A. On November 3, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred 583-23 D Apartment 203 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to Seoul BB-dong, Seoul, and filed a non-taxation report on capital gains tax while it is subject to non-taxation on one house for one household after having transferred D apartment 203 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On August 10, 2010, the Defendant decided and notified 12,848,790 won of the capital gains tax for the year 2009 on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not reside in the apartment of this case for more than two years” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Evidence] In the absence of dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 and Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number)

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case, which was otherwise reported, is unlawful, since he resided in the apartment of this case for not less than two years, constitutes the non-taxation of one house for one household.

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed by the plaintiff without going through the previous trial procedure on the disposition of this case, and thus, it should be dismissed.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On December 20, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired the apartment of this case, and transferred it to KRW 200 million on November 3, 2009.

(2) From October 18, 2006 to September 28, 2009, the Plaintiff’s resident registration was made on the instant apartment house. From September 29, 2009 to September 29, 2009, the Plaintiff’s husband Kim Z was registered as the resident registration of 1070-27 HHHHH 401, Seoul BB-Gu, Seoul, and on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband Kim Z was registered as the resident registration of 401 from October 10, 2006 to HH 401.

(3) In the instant apartment, the lessee resided from October 206 to November 1, 2009, and the structure of the instant apartment is three rooms and 24 square meters.

(4) On August 10, 2010, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on August 13, 2010 without being notified of the instant disposition, and without going through the pre-trial procedure, such as a request for examination or adjudgment. After the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff did not undergo the pre-trial procedure even until April 19, 201, which is the date of closing argument.

[Reasons for Recognition] The above evidence and the purport of the whole pleading

D. Determination

Administrative litigation seeking a revocation of tax disposition shall necessarily go through the procedures prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes, such as a request for review or adjudgment, and within 90 days from the date (where a notice of disposition is received, the date of its receipt) on which a request for review or adjudgment, etc. on a tax disposition is known (Articles 56 and 61 of the Framework Act on National Taxes), and without going through such procedures, an action is unlawful.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit without being notified of the instant disposition on August 10, 2010 and without going through the pre-trial procedure such as a request for examination or a request for trial (the Plaintiff did not go through the pre-trial procedure even before April 19, 201, which is the closing date of pleadings). The instant lawsuit is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.