1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B, on March 9, 201, as children, donated 1/3 shares of each of the land E and 7 parcels to C, D, and the Plaintiff, Ansan-si, the Plaintiff.

B. On May 201, when the Plaintiff reported gift tax amounting to KRW 177,875,930 in relation to the receipt of the pertinent real estate, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment in kind with respect to his/her share among the real estate donated, E and four parcels (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in Ansan-si, the Plaintiff paid the said share in kind on September 5, 201.

C. The Defendant: (a) applied Article 97(4) of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 12169, Jan. 1, 2014) on the premise that the payment of the instant real estate in kind is a transfer under the Income Tax Act; (b) notified the Plaintiff of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 34,930,360 on June 1, 201 on the basis that the acquisition price shall be the acquisition price B and the transfer price shall be the payment in kind.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on April 23, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the whole purport of pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Payment in kind is a substitute for tax payment, and it does not mean that income occurs through this is merely a tax payment method.

Unlike disposal of general real estate realizing profits according to the judgment of the parties or payment in kind for tax payment, unlike payment in kind, shall not be treated equally as compulsory.

If payment in kind is viewed as the object of capital gains tax payment, it is contrary to the purpose of the payment in kind.

Therefore, the reduction of gift tax due to payment in kind does not constitute the transfer of assets at a cost, and thus, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

(2) The instant provision applied by the Defendant is due to the transfer.