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

A. On July 18, 1984, the Plaintiff acquired the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B Apartment 506 (hereinafter “instant previous house”) and acquired the instant previous house (Seoul Mapo-gu 104 Dong 1204, 1204 (hereinafter “instant newly-built house”). The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife D owned the instant newly-built house, including the instant newly-built house, by December 2012.

The owner's housing holding period is the Plaintiff's housing holding period from the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment 104 Dong 1204 to the date of July 18, 1984 to December 10, 2012, the Plaintiff's newly-built house of this case from the date of March 3, 2002 to the date of March 15, 202, from the date of Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, from the date of December 15, 2002 to December 15, 2002, from the date of December 15, 2002 to the date of December 15, 2002.

B. On December 10, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred the instant newly-built house to KRW 600 million, and accordingly, on February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff scheduled the amount of KRW 81,913,370 calculated by deducting the special deduction rate of 30% from the gains from transfer pursuant to Table 1 of Article 95(2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11511, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) from the special deduction rate of 30%.

C. On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the current capital gains tax system is unconstitutional because it does not consider the increase in housing prices due to price increase for the primary long-term holders for residential purposes, and thus requires the Defendant to impose capital gains tax at a punitive level, and filed a request for correction seeking the cancellation of capital gains tax for the year 2012.

On October 13, 2014, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for rectification on the grounds that the details of the capital gains tax return were properly calculated and reported in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, and there is no reason to rectify them.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

The plaintiff was under the procedure of the previous trial.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3, 5 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff.