1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 15, 2006, the ownership transfer registration for B forest No. 49,488 square meters was filed on June 15, 2006, and on May 14, 2007, the said forest land was divided into B forest No. 42,477 square meters and D forest No. 7,041 square meters, and on April 7, 2009, the said D land was expropriated in KRW 742,00,000 to the Korea National Housing Corporation. The said land B was sold at KRW 971,00,000 by auction on September 19, 2012.

B. C, a registered titleholder of the above land B and D (hereinafter referred to as “second parcels of land”), failed to file a report on capital gains tax for the above transfer, and thereby the director of the tax office imposed capital gains tax for the year 2009 and the capital gains tax for the year 2012 on C. As to this, C filed a claim for review of legality before taxation by asserting that it is only a registered titleholder, and as a result, on the actual owner of the above land from September 23, 2013 to October 31, 201, it was found that the Plaintiff, E, and F held a title trust with the above land as the actual owner.

C. Accordingly, on February 3, 2014, the head of Ansan District Tax Office imposed capital gains tax of KRW 105,348,093 (including additional taxes) for each of the instant land 1/3 shares in the Plaintiff, and capital gains tax of KRW 27,520,675 (including additional taxes) for the year 2009, and accordingly, on February 3, 2014, the head of Ansan District Tax Office imposed capital gains tax of KRW 10,661,220 for the transfer income tax of KRW 10,661,220 for the Plaintiff and KRW 2,786,930 for the transfer income tax of KRW 2,786,930 for the transfer income tax of KRW 20 for the year 209.

On the other hand, on December 26, 2012, the Plaintiff received a decision to commence individual rehabilitation procedures from the Seoul Central District Court to 2012dan223, and was decided to authorize the individual rehabilitation plan on August 26, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 2, Eul-B and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the taxation claim of this case was not reported as reorganization claim before it decided to grant authorization for the individual rehabilitation plan.