A. On August 13, 1983, the Plaintiff acquired two-story housing (104.13 square meters on the first floor, 57.85 square meters on the second floor, 104.13 square meters on the second floor, 57.85 square meters on the second floor, and 132.17 square meters on the 132.17 square meters of a reinforced concrete structure sloping roof (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant real estate”) by inheritance.

The Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate in KRW 2.5 billion to C (hereinafter “C”) on September 3, 2015.

B. On November 20, 2015, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 45,018,639 of the capital gains tax calculated by dividing the instant real estate into one house expensive house and calculated as one house expensive house, on the following grounds: (a) the housing area (total of 1 and 2 stories of the instant building) among the instant real estate is larger than the part other than the area (store 132.17 square meters); and (b) the Plaintiff reported and paid it to the Defendant.

C. From September 4, 2017 to December 21, 2017, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed that the first floor of the instant building is operated as a restaurant and excluded from the housing area, and that the real estate of this case is more than the part other than the housing area (2nd floor of the instant building, 104.13 square meters, 132.17 square meters, and 270.48 square meters, including an unauthorized building).

On February 1, 2018, the Defendant denied non-taxation on one house for one household with respect to the area of the portion other than the housing, and issued the instant disposition to correct and notify capital gains tax of KRW 347,273,586.

E. On April 17, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed to the National Tax Service, but was dismissed on July 26, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The 1st floor of the instant building asserted by the Plaintiff was completely restored to a house due to the closure and removal of restaurant business, and thus, the instant real estate area is larger than the area of the part other than the housing area.