1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation of capital gains tax of KRW 133,180,850 against the Defendant does not exist.

2. The trial;

1. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the director of the Daejeon District Tax Office in the first instance trial, and applied for the correction of the Defendant to the Republic of Korea on the ground that the Plaintiff mistakenly designated the Defendant in the trial. This court granted permission pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

Therefore, a lawsuit against the “the director of Daejeon District Office” before its rectification pursuant to Article 14(4) and (5) of the Administrative Litigation Act is withdrawn. Since the lawsuit against the “the Republic of Korea” corrected is considered to have been brought at the time when the Plaintiff first brought a lawsuit, the subject of the judgment by this Court is a claim against the “the Republic of Korea.”

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff did not issue a certificate of complete payment of tax to the head of Daejeon District Tax Office for business registration on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to issue a certificate of complete payment of tax on the grounds that “the transfer income tax of KRW 133,180,850 was delinquent.”

B. On September 8, 1997, the computerized data managed by the Daejeon District Tax Office under the Defendant’s control, the Plaintiff determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 75,243,480 as of September 30, 1997, which was due date for the payment of capital gains tax of KRW 57,937,370. The Plaintiff, the taxpayer, shall be the Plaintiff’s capital gains tax of KRW 133,180,850, which was the sum of KRW 57,937,370.

in arrears is written as "those in arrears".

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not have committed an act that meets the requirements for taxation of capital gains tax by selling real estate owned by the Plaintiff around 1996. The instant taxation disposition is null and void as a matter of course, and there is no Plaintiff’s obligation to pay capital gains tax. 2) The Defendant’s assertion cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course.

In addition, it is good faith to seek confirmation of the existence of the obligation after the lapse of a long period from the time of the instant taxation.