1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. Around September 29, 2006, B, the Plaintiff’s spouse, sold the land and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by Mapo-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in KRW 11,387,705,000, and was fully paid the instant real estate sales price by December 30, 2009.

B. After investigating the source of funds against the Plaintiff from July 27, 2015 to October 20, 2015, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office confirmed on October 25, 2011 that the amount of KRW 1 billion, which is a part of the purchase price of the instant real estate received by B (hereinafter “market money”) was used as the amount of variable pension insurance (the name of the goods: the amount of Wate Pension II that is directly paid for the goods; hereinafter “market insurance”) by the Plaintiff as the contracting party.

C. Since then, on October 25, 201, the Defendant added the grounds for disposition that the Plaintiff received “right to receive dispute insurance proceeds” from B on the ground that the insurance proceeds of the key insurance deposited into one bank account in the name of the Plaintiff were reverted to the Plaintiff in the instant lawsuit in preliminary form, on the grounds that the insurance proceeds of the key insurance deposited into one bank account in the name of the Plaintiff were reverted to the Plaintiff.

On December 4, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of KRW 243,00,000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

On February 24, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 24, 2016, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the claim on June 10, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, Eul's 1 and 2 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. For the following reasons, the Defendant’s instant disposition against the Plaintiff is unlawful.

1. In the first place, the plaintiff was married with B on May 10, 1969, and the plaintiff was a family heading, as a family heading.