A. On April 16, 1988, the Plaintiff newly built and acquired neighborhood living facilities, education and research facilities, and housing buildings with a total floor area of 1,019,46 square meters on each of the above lands (hereinafter “instant building”) on each of the above lands, with a total floor area of 1,019,000 square meters as well as 256 square meters in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu on July 9, 1996.

B. On October 12, 200, the Plaintiff sold and transferred the instant building, etc. to Nonparty E through the auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) with the Seoul Northern District Court DD (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), but did not report the transfer income tax.

C. On March 6, 2001, the head of the provincial tax office issued a notice of unpaid payment of capital gains tax of KRW 6,005,463 on March 6, 2001 (hereinafter “unpaid notice”) with respect to the above transfer to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “unpaid notice”), and on October 4, 2001, the head of the provincial tax office again issued a notice of increase in capital gains tax of KRW 47,530,060 and additional tax of KRW 4,781,722 by calculating capital gains tax as shown in the attached Table.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition,” and the notice of tax payment shall be referred to as “the instant tax payment notice”).

On the other hand, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 18256 on January 29, 2004, the "Organization of the National Tax Service and its affiliated agencies", and the Nowon Tax Office was newly established on April 1, 2004, the right to impose the tax on the transfer was transferred from the head of the provincial tax office to the defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as the defendant, regardless of whether before or after the transfer of the above service). 【Evidence Nos. 1 through 14, 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 of the Grounds for Recognition (including the branch numbers for those with above numbers, but excluding Gap evidence No. 10-1), Gap evidence No. 10-1, part of Gap evidence No. 2, witness F’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is void as a matter of course

A. The Plaintiff’s first notice of tax payment alleged by the parties was not duly served on the Plaintiff, and thus the instant notice of tax payment became effective.