2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

The deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”) transferred, on March 10, 2015, the housing of the Seocho-gu Seoul E-Ba 4 Dong 2 (hereinafter “instant housing”) (hereinafter “instant housing”) under the possession of 7 rental housing bonds (hereinafter “instant rental housing”) as indicated below.

On July 1, 1997, 112, 1303, 112, 1303, 1997, the F apartment unit 108, 502, 1998, the G apartment unit 112, 705, the G apartment unit 112, 705, the G apartment unit 307, the Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si on January 13, 1998, and 195, the G apartment 614, 307, 198, and 201.3, the deceased's non-taxation on May 1, 201, the transfer income tax of 201, 30, 201, the G apartment unit 30, 15, the non-taxation on May 20, 201, and 301, the deceased's non-taxation on June 13, 201, 201, the deceased's non-taxation apartment unit 30.

On December 2, 2016, the Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) who are the deceased’s inheritors filed a request for correction with the Defendant on the ground that the instant housing was exempt from capital gains tax pursuant to Article 155(19) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and the Defendant rejected the said request for correction on January 3, 2017, on the ground that the instant housing was not registered as a rental house with the Seocho-gu Office pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Rental Housing Act, on the ground that the instant housing was not registered as a rental house pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Rental Housing Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff et al., dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 13, 2017, but was dismissed on April 12, 2017.

【Ground of recognition” has no dispute, Gap's 1 through 6 evidence, Eul's 1 and 2 evidence (including a tentative number).