1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on May 7, 200, and on May 3, 2002, the Plaintiff, as the inheritor of the deceased, was sentenced to a qualified acceptance as the Seoul Family Court Decision 2000Ra5736.

B. On June 20, 2012, the Plaintiff succeeded to 1/6 shares of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 List owned by the Deceased (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On March 25, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court D rendered a decision to commence a voluntary auction of real estate on the instant real estate, and the bid price was awarded in KRW 2,013,30,000 on March 25, 2013, and on April 26, 2013, the bid price was fully distributed to the obligees of the Deceased.

C. The director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the division of the Defendant: (a) deemed that the successful bid of the instant real estate, an inherited property, constitutes a transfer date; (b) calculated gains on transfer corresponding to the Plaintiff’s shares in inheritance by taking the date of the successful bid as the date of transfer; and (c) calculated gains on transfer corresponding to the Plaintiff’s shares in inheritance; and (d) imposed individual local income tax on the Plaintiff as transfer income belonging to the year 2013; and (b) the head of the Defendant Sung-nam branch imposed individual local income tax on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 1, 2017, but was dismissed on November 16, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff in Chapter 1 is the inheritor who made a qualified acceptance, and all the auction proceeds of the real estate of this case generated by the above auction belong to inheritance creditors, and the transfer income equivalent to the inheritance shares of the real estate of this case does not belong to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff does not have any inherited property, and the purport of the qualified acceptance system, namely, the disposition of this case in violation of Article 1028 of the Civil Act, is unlawful. 2)