1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, do not conflict between the parties or are apparent in records:

On March 30, 2002, the Plaintiff succeeded to the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B apartment 322 Dong 503 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”). On November 29, 2002, the area where the apartment of this case is located was approved by the reconstruction project association (C apartment reconstruction project association).

B. The Plaintiff, as a member of the Plaintiff, entered into a sales contract with the said association on the newly constructed apartment (307 dong 1702) instead of the instant apartment (307 dong 1702), and on April 27, 2006, transferred the said member’s right to sell the housing (hereinafter “instant right to sell the housing”) to Nonparty D and one other, and did not report the transfer income tax.

C. Accordingly, on March 31, 2010, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 166,718,470 of the transfer income tax for the year 2006 by taking the acquisition value of the instant sales right as the purchase price of KRW 264,00,00 (the purchase price) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On November 24, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred the instant sales right to the Plaintiff on April 19, 2006, not on April 27, 2006, but on April 19, 2006, and was one house for one household as of the date of the said transfer. Therefore, even though the transfer of the instant sales right constitutes a non-taxation of one house for one household, the instant disposition, which was otherwise reported differently, was alleged to the effect that it constitutes a serious and apparent invalidity of the defect, and filed a lawsuit seeking nullification of the imposition of capital gains tax.

E. On July 10, 2012, this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim (which is the subject judgment of review) on the following grounds.

In an administrative litigation claiming the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeking the confirmation of invalidity, the plaintiff is responsible to assert and prove the grounds for invalidity of the administrative disposition. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the disposition of this case as a matter of course, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.