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

① The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 49,988,910 of the transfer income tax for the year 2015, which was vested in the Plaintiff on August 11, 2016 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016, Aug. 22, 2016) is revoked. ② The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 120 million per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A judgment of the court of first instance on the revocation of a disposition imposing capital gains tax shall be revoked.

The court of the first instance rejected the claim for payment of money, and dismissed the claim for cancellation of the disposition imposing capital gains tax. Of all, the plaintiff appealed only on the part of the claim for cancellation of the disposition imposing capital gains tax. Therefore, the part concerning the claim for payment of money in the judgment of the court of first instance

2. cite of the reasons for the written judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court regarding this case is as follows, and the remaining part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion added by this Court, such as Paragraph 3 is the same as that of Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter referred to as "the summary term used in this case"). Thus, the meaning of the summary term used in this case is the same as the judgment of the first instance.

2 The part " August 22, 2016" in the 12th line shall be read as " August 11, 2016".

5 11 lines / [Based on recognition] column add "the result of this Court's order to submit financial transaction information to a Korean bank that is a stock company."

3. Determination as to the additional argument

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Defendant conducted a tax investigation of capital gains tax against the Plaintiff and did not give written notice pursuant to Article 81-12 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Determination

Article 81-12 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that when a tax official completes a tax investigation, he/she shall explain to the taxpayer the results of the investigation including "the details of the tax investigation", "tax base to be determined or corrected", "tax base to be determined or corrected", and "the basis for calculation" and notify the taxpayer

According to the evidence No. 2, the defendant conducted a tax investigation of capital gains tax on the plaintiff, and notified the plaintiff of the result of the tax investigation in writing on March 8, 2016, and the plaintiff can find the fact that the plaintiff requested the defendant to review the legality of the tax before taxation. Thus, the defendant implemented the written notification procedure as to the result of the tax investigation to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance court on the imposition of capital gains tax is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.