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

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Ansan-si, Ansan-si, B 284 square meters, C warehouse sites 39 square meters, and D forest land 26 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”).

B. Multi-household 8 (hereinafter “instant building”) was newly built on the instant land, and obtained approval for use on December 18, 2009.

C. On May 11, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) filed a final return on the tax base of global income for which 2010 and 2011 reverts to the Defendant on the premise that the Plaintiff had earned income by running a real estate business (housing construction and sales business).

From April 18, 2013 to May 1, 2013, the Defendant conducted a field investigation on the Plaintiff’s capital gains tax, and determined that the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to E on January 4, 2010, and imposed a disposition of imposition of KRW 207,315,670 on the Plaintiff on July 8, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] Gap's evidence 6-1 to 8, Eul's evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul's evidence 5-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff provided the land of this case between E and E, a building business operator, and concluded a partnership contract with the plaintiff to newly build a multi-household house on the land of this case by bearing construction costs, and since the plaintiff did not transfer the land of this case to E, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. In full view of the evidence, including evidence Nos. 3, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, 8, and 9, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that a person who newly built and sold a real multi-household house on the land of this case is E, and that the plaintiff transferred the land of this case to E. The evidence, witness E, and F alone are insufficient to reverse this. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.