1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On June 16, 2005, the Plaintiff sold to B and C 2,515 square meters of land and E 2,676 square meters of land owned by it (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer for Plaintiff’s land on the same day.

After that, on May 31, 2006, the Plaintiff reported and paid capital gains tax with the transfer value of the Plaintiff’s land as KRW 235,500,000 at the competent tax office.

On the other hand, B and C sold the Plaintiff’s land to F on June 11, 2009, and the director of the Incheon District Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the transfer income tax on the Plaintiff’s land in the above B (hereinafter “instant primary tax investigation”) around September 2010, and concluded that B and C acquired the Plaintiff’s land from the Plaintiff as KRW 471,90,000. On November 15, 2010, B and C notified the Defendant of taxation data that the transfer value of the Plaintiff’s land reported to the Defendant is different from the above acquisition value in B.

The Defendant, from February 1, 2015 to April 2, 2015, conducted a tax investigation on the transfer income tax on the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “the second tax investigation of this case”), deemed that the transfer value of the Plaintiff’s land was KRW 471,90,000, and on July 1, 2015, notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the transfer income tax of KRW 141,741,520 (including additional taxes) reverted to the Plaintiff in 2005.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 7, 2015, and the Tax Tribunal decided to conduct a reinvestigation on June 8, 2016.

From June 27, 2016 to August 16, 2016, the Defendant decided to maintain the instant disposition after re-audit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 12, 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as a whole, and the second tax investigation of this case are illegal since the following defects are discovered.