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 November 7, 1984, the Plaintiff acquired the housing of the second-class B (hereinafter “instant housing”) of Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon, and transferred it on August 31, 201.

B. The Plaintiff did not file a return on the tax base of capital gains on the premise that the transfer of the instant house is a transfer of one house by one household under Article 89(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 10789, Jun. 7, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 154(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23139, Sep. 15, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) that the transfer of the instant house is exempt from capital gains.

C. However, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff constituted the same household with C on the ground that at the time of the transfer of the instant house, the Plaintiff was a resident registration domicile of female C at the time of the transfer of the instant house, and that there was a resident registration move-in report in the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment owned by C; (b) on the premise that the transfer of the instant house cannot be deemed a transfer of one house for one household subject to non-taxation of capital gains tax, on July 8, 2016, imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff for KRW 92,568,470 (including additional tax

On September 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 22, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 12, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's argument 1 tax summary

Since the non-existence Plaintiff originally resided in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Edong for a long time, he was divorced from his spouse around November 9, 2005, the Plaintiff had been living in F, Dec. 1, 2007 with son and woman F, Dec. 1, 2005.

In addition, the Plaintiff could be deemed to have lived with C because there was no difference in the fact that he was living together with C, as well as that he had sufficient income to maintain his independent living with the lease income generated from the instant housing until the time of transfer of this case.