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 March 20, 1980, the Plaintiff acquired and owned the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul apartment No. 1206 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and transferred it to C on July 2, 2015, and did not file a transfer income tax report thereon.

B. Article 89(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter the same) provides that the transfer of the instant apartment constitutes “house” as of the date of the instant apartment transfer, which the Plaintiff owned other than the instant apartment.

The title and Article 154(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27829, Feb. 3, 2017; hereinafter the same) do not constitute “transfer of one house for one household”. On February 1, 2018, the Plaintiff determined and notified the Plaintiff of capital gains tax of 90,413,010 (including additional tax) for the year 2015.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(c) The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on March 6, 2018, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on May 25, 2018. [The Plaintiff’s grounds for recognition are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff did not dispute any dispute over the grounds for recognition; (b) the entries in subparagraphs A through B, and E

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant officetel claiming that the instant officetel does not constitute “house” is indicated as business facilities and neighborhood living facilities by the Plaintiff’s assertion.

In addition, since the acquisition of the instant officetel, the Plaintiff continued to pay the property tax on the premise that the instant officetel was for business purposes, and leased it only for business purposes, and any of the lessees did not make a move-in report on the instant officetel, and no building was actually used for residence.

Even if some lessees use the instant officetel temporarily for residential purpose.