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

A. On July 17, 2001, the Defendant completed each registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s name on January 6, 2005 with respect to 2/15 shares of 10-3 forest land of 10-3 forest land of 547 square meters in 0-3 forest land in 00, 000, 000.

In addition, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff on the ground of the inheritance on July 17, 2001 with respect to 2/15 shares among 00-1 forest land and 620-1 forest land, on the ground of the inheritance on July 17, 2001.

B. The Plaintiff transferred the entire shares owned by the Plaintiff and the entire shares owned by the Plaintiff among the entire shares owned by the Plaintiff among the forest land owned by ○○○-ri 10-3 forest land and ○○ 620-1 forest land (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. In making a preliminary return on the transfer of the instant land on June 30, 2006 after the transfer of the instant land, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer margin by using the transfer margin as KRW 349,400,000, based on the actual transaction value, and the acquisition value as the actual transaction value was 201,804,355, which was converted according to the standard market price ratio at the time of acquisition and transfer, and reported the transfer income tax as KRW 45,170,313.

D. On this basis, the Defendant recognized the transfer value of the instant land as KRW 351,778,298, which is the actual transaction value, and the acquisition value as KRW 33,432,708, which is the value assessed based on the standard market price at the time of inheritance and donation, and calculated the transfer margin. On September 8, 2006, the Defendant decided KRW 79,094,430 to the Plaintiff as the transfer income tax for the year 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On October 23, 2006, the Defendant attached the Plaintiff’s share of 4,946 square meters out of 0-1 forest land of 0-1 forest land in ○○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○, ○○, ○, ○, ○, ○46 square meters (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”).

[Ground of Recognition: Unsatisfy, Evidence No. 1-1, Evidence No. 4-1, Evidence No. 2, 7, 8, and Evidence No. 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments No. 1]

2. Whether the lawsuit in this case is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

Although the acquisition value of inherited or donated assets is determined by converting the actual transaction value at the ratio of the standard market price at the time of acquisition and transfer, the instant disposition of imposition of capital gains tax is unlawful since the acquisition value of the land of this case inherited or donated is calculated based on the standard market price without any legal basis.

In addition, the instant disposition is unlawful because it was procedural error without notice of taxation.

(2) Summary of the defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit without going through legitimate pre-trial proceedings on the instant disposition and attachment disposition, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful in entirety.

director Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006)

Article 55 (Appeal)

(1) Any person whose rights or interests are infringed by receiving an unlawful or unreasonable disposition, or by failing to receive a necessary disposition, as a disposition under this Act or other tax-related Acts, may request the cancellation or modification of the disposition, or a necessary disposition, by requesting an examination or adjudgment under this Chapter

(3) An objection under this Chapter may be raised prior to a request for examination or adjudgment on the relevant disposition, except where the disposition under paragraphs (1) and (2) is to be investigated, determined or managed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, or should have been made

Article 61 (Period of Request)

(1) Any person shall file an examination request within 90 days from the date (when a disposition notice is received, the date of its receipt) on which he becomes aware of the relevant disposition.

(2) Any person who desires to make a request for examination after passing a request for examination shall file an objection within ninety days after he is notified of the decision on the objection: Provided, That where the decision is not notified within the period for decision making referred to in the proviso of Article 66 (6), the request for examination may be filed after the period for decision expires even

Article 66 (Raising Objections)

(6) The provisions of Articles 61 (1), (3) and (4), 62 (2), 63, the proviso to Article 64 (1), and Article 64 (2), and Articles 65 and 65-2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to filing of objections: Provided, That "90 days" in Article 65 (2) shall be construed as "30 days".

Article 68 (Period of Request)

(1) Any request for adjudgment shall be made within 90 days after the relevant disposition is known (when a notice of disposition is received, after the date of its receipt).

C. Determination

(1) According to the relevant laws and regulations, in filing an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of a tax disposition or an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of a disposition under tax laws related thereto, a request for evaluation or a request for adjudication and a decision thereon under the Framework Act on National Taxes shall be, in principle, filed within 90 days from the date of becoming aware of the relevant disposition (if a notice of disposition is received, the date of receiving the notice of disposition). In addition, if the above request for adjudication is unlawful due to the lapse of the period, the administrative litigation shall also be deemed inappropriate, and the institution of administrative litigation shall be filed within 90 days from the date of receiving the notice of the decision on the request

(2) In full view of the purport of the arguments in this case’s return to the case’s return, Gap’s evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 2 through 8 (including each number), the plaintiff filed an objection on December 15, 2006, which was 90 days after being served on September 12, 2006. The plaintiff, on October 25, 2006, served the notice of attachment on the notice of attachment on December 15, 2006, and filed an objection on December 17, 2006. The defendant, on January 11, 2007, dismissed the plaintiff’s objection against the disposition of attachment on the ground that the plaintiff was served on the plaintiff on the notice of attachment on the ground that the notice of attachment was served on October 25, 2006, and that the plaintiff rejected the plaintiff’s objection against the disposition of attachment on the ground that the notice of attachment was served on the plaintiff on January 17, 2007.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff filed a petition for a trial after the lapse of 90 days from the filing period of the petition, and the petition for a trial with respect to the attachment disposition of this case was filed after the lapse of 90 days from the filing period of the petition for a trial. As such, such a petition for a trial and a petition for a trial are unlawful due to the lapse of the period, and the lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case and the attachment disposition of this case does not meet the requirements of the previous

3. Conclusion

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