11. The lawsuit concerning the part other than the penalty tax on unfaithful payment among the disposition imposing capital gains tax shall be dismissed, respectively.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 through 3 (if any, including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings:

A. On October 1, 2010, the Plaintiff sold 315,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2 (hereinafter “each land before the instant merger”) to GoCC on October 1, 201 (hereinafter “the instant trade”). The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the above lands on October 8, 2010 (No. 33853, Oct. 8, 2010).

B. Each of the lands listed in the foregoing paragraph (a) was changed into, merged with, on February 22, 2011, the land category was changed into, “former,” and became 3,356 square meters prior to, Seopo-si, Seopo-si.

C. On October 29, 2010, the Plaintiff reported tax base of transfer income to the Defendant [the calculated tax amount of 34,990, 800, 291,000, 34,699, and 800 won (the amount of tax payable of 17,349, 900, 17,349, and 900 won)], but did not pay tax in installments within the scheduled period.

D. On March 11, 2011, the Defendant issued a tax notice to the Plaintiff to pay KRW 17,69,110, including additional tax, by March 31, 2011.

2. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the sales of this case are subject to exemption from capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, since each of the lands before the merger of this case was 8 years or more. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the transfer income tax is a tax by filing a return of tax base and tax amount, and thus the amount of tax is finalized by the Plaintiff’s filing of a return of tax base and tax amount, and the Defendant’s failure to pay it is a collection disposition for collecting the final tax

3. Determination

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

The Plaintiff sought confirmation as to whether the disposition imposing capital gains tax for 2010, which was rendered on March 11, 2010 and 10. The Plaintiff’s taxation disposition under the Administrative Litigation Act is invalid. The term “disposition by an administrative agency subject to appeal” means the exercise of public authority or refusal thereof, and other similar administrative actions (Articles 19 and 2(1)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act), namely, the act of an administrative agency’s establishment of rights or obligations under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes or other legal effects on the part of the Plaintiff’s tax base and payment of capital gains tax for 10 years (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200, supra). The Plaintiff’s determination on whether the tax base and payment of capital gains tax for 10 years and 20 years are subject to appeal litigation, and the amount of tax for 10 years and 3 years are merely the same taxation disposition that the Plaintiff reported and notified to the Defendant for the imposition of capital gains tax for 20 years and 10 years prior to the said determination.

C. Determination on the legality of the imposition of the penalty tax on unfaithful payment

On the other hand, the plaintiff paid only 17,349,90 won which is part of the calculated tax amount and did not pay the remaining tax amount when making a preliminary return of capital gains tax, as seen earlier, and the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that when the tax amount reported is not paid, an additional tax shall be imposed. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that the defendant imposed an additional tax for arrears on the plaintiff. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part seeking the confirmation of invalidity of the remaining part of the lawsuit of this case, excluding the portion for the non-faith payment penalty tax, is unlawful, and thus, it is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim for confirmation of invalidity of the imposition of the non-faith payment penalty tax on March 11, 201 is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.