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 October 4, 2002, the Plaintiff transferred the occupation right of the B Apartment No. 117, 1701, 153.3 square meters (46 square meters) in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to C, and reported the transfer income tax with the transfer value of KRW 260,000,000.

B. On August 11, 201, the head of Seocho District Tax Office: (a) transferred the instant sales right to a third party and reported the transfer income tax to a third party; (b) calculated the acquisition value of C by adding the total amount of KRW 33,779,380 on the remainder of the contributions paid by the members of the Plaintiff to KRW 260,00,000 on the written contract submitted by the Plaintiff; and (c) adjusted the sales price to KRW 420,00,000 according to C’s objection, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

C. Accordingly, on April 5, 2013, the Defendant corrected the Plaintiff’s transfer value of the instant sales right to C as KRW 420,000,000, and issued the instant disposition to impose the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax of KRW 118,960,660 (including additional tax) for the year 2002.

The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 29, 2013 regarding the instant disposition, but was dismissed on March 13, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, plaintiff's assertion of the whole argument 2

A. Although the transfer value of the instant sales right is clear that it is KRW 260,000,000 on the sales contract, which is a disposal document, the instant disposition that the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s transfer value at KRW 420,000 based only on the statement of the transferee, is unlawful.

B. The taxation exclusion period of the disposition of this case and the disposition of this case are illegal since the lapse of five years from June 1, 2003, which is the day following the expiration date of the final return period of the tax base on the sale right of this case.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The transfer value No. 3 (the real estate sales contract, Eul evidence No. 2-1), and Gap evidence No. 4 (the transaction confirmation, Eul evidence No. 2-2) submitted by the plaintiff at the time of reporting the original transfer income tax, are examined as follows. The plaintiff and C.