1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 15, 1998, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land from Nonparty C, who is the Plaintiff’s larger penalty, the Plaintiff. On January 8, 2000, the said land was replaced with the land size of 646.8 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On March 27, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to Nonparty E and E’s spouse, who is the Plaintiff’s smaller penalty, in KRW 1,50 million.

B. On May 31, 2014, the Plaintiff reported the tax base and amount of capital gains tax for the transfer of the instant land to the Defendant in 2014, and calculated the transfer value as KRW 1.5 million based on the actual transaction price and the acquisition value as KRW 8.7 million based on the actual transaction price, and paid KRW 26,103,540 of capital gains tax by scheduled return.

C. The director of the Daegu Regional Tax Office, from October 28, 2014 to November 14, 2014, performed a comprehensive audit on the Defendant. As a result, the Defendant, on the ground that the actual acquisition price of the instant land is insufficient, and accordingly, Article 97(1)1(b) of the Income Tax Act, not the actual transaction price, is not the actual transaction price.

The tax base is re-calculated with the conversion value of KRW 262,080,537, and on March 5, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a revised notice of KRW 187,784,220 (including additional taxes) for the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2014.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On April 25, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service under the same year.

7. 27. The above request for review was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 15, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1: (a) deemed that the actual acquisition value of the instant land is unclear, the Defendant calculated the acquisition value as a conversion price, not the actual transaction value, and rendered the instant disposition.

However, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from C in the amount of KRW 870 million and paid the purchase price.