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 September 3, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred the above real estate (hereinafter “instant transferred house”) as the owner of the land B and the above ground house in Gangnam-si.

B. At the time of the above transfer, the building was registered under the name of the Plaintiff, but the first floor of the above building was composed of commercial buildings, and the second floor was composed of housing (hereinafter “instant key housing”).

C. On November 30, 2010, when the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax on the instant transferred house to the Defendant, the instant key house was registered in the name of the Plaintiff, but the actual owner claimed that her mother is D, and filed a non-taxation report for one household.

On April 6, 2016, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 72,965,480 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements of one house for one household at the time of the transfer of the instant house, since the instant house was owned by the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). E.

On May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed against the Defendant, but was dismissed on June 17, 2016. On September 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on December 22, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The key issue house of the Plaintiff’s assertion was originally a single-story building, and the Plaintiff was newly built around November 1, 199, and her mother requested that the Plaintiff build a house that the Plaintiff would reside in, around 2001, and her mother paid KRW 65 million on behalf of the Plaintiff for the loan obligations under the Plaintiff’s name.

Accordingly, the plaintiff extended the second floor of KRW 15 million, which is the same as D's money, and the plaintiff was the key house of this case, and D began to live in the key house from that time.

Therefore, the key issue of this case is as follows.