1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing this case, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following dismissals or additions under paragraph (2). Thus, this shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The second and second pages of the first instance judgment are as follows: “ September 26, 2005.” “ September 26, 2005.”

See the text of the first instance judgment 2 pages 12, the phrase “as of May 31, 2015” is added in front of the “transfer.”

In the second half of the judgment of the court of first instance, 5 to 4 " May 17, 2016" shall be deemed " May 16, 2016."

The letter of the first instance judgment, 8 pages 10, "No. 16," which is "No. 16, No. 20, No. 16, No. 2000.

On January 25, 2019, the court of first instance accepted F’s appeal on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim for division of property exceeds the exclusion period of two years, and rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal corresponding to the revoked part of the first instance judgment and dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal. The said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

The term "domination" is changed.

The 3 to 10 pages shall be deleted from the bottom of the first instance judgment up to 9 pages.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around June 30, 2015, when the Defendant received taxation data on each of the instant land, the Defendant omitted the notice of taxation by deeming that the period from the date the notice of taxation notice under Article 81-15(2)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes to the expiration date of the exclusion period of national taxes is not more than three months. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was not provided an opportunity for pre-assessment review. It is not reasonable that the Defendant did not simply have any justifiable reason to omit the notice of taxation on the ground that it is the case of provisional attachment No. 2016Ra3470 of Suwon District Court’s 2016.