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 January 17, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on one’s own with respect to the Seongbuk-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City Seo-gu B large 231.2 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On January 22, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the fourth-story building on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”).

(B) The instant land and the instant building are combined with each other (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

After transferring the instant real estate to C on April 24, 2003, on July 1, 2003, the Plaintiff applied for full reduction or exemption by applying the special provisions on taxation of newly-built house under Article 99-3 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act to the Defendant, by calculating the transfer value of the instant real estate as KRW 550 million, acquisition value as KRW 50 million, and by calculating the acquisition value as KRW 508,515,331, and filing a report on capital gains tax.

C. On February 1, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that the actual transfer value of the instant real estate was KRW 646.5 million and denied capital gains tax reduction or exemption as the instant real estate fell under a high-priced house, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of KRW 47,393,90 (including penalty tax for failure to file a report, KRW 978,574, and penalty tax for failure to file a report, KRW 23,882,567) for the year 2003.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The plaintiff was under the procedure of the previous trial.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 4 evidence, Eul 1 evidence (including a provisional lot number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s principal safety defense is a tax on the method of return and payment, and the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax exemption on the Plaintiff’s report of transfer income tax, and issued a correction notice of the transfer income tax in 2003, and instead recognized the acquisition value reported by the Plaintiff without considering the acquisition value of the instant land in the process of the Defendant’s correction notice.