1. The Defendant’s transfer income tax of KRW 227,485,580 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on April 23, 2015.

1. (i) On August 26, 1999, the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case (hereinafter “instant land”) with the land of 1,022 square meters, C,064 square meters, C, 1,064 square meters, D 2,919 square meters, E, 321 square meters, prior to E.

The Plaintiff sold the instant land to F on February 10, 2004 at USD 1 million in total, and received the last balance on March 10, 2004, but did not transfer the registration of transfer of ownership, and did not report and pay the transfer income tax.

The instant land was designated as a land transaction permission zone on December 1, 2003, and was released from the land transaction permission zone on January 30, 2009.

B. On April 23, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 227,485,580 (including additional tax on negligent tax returns, KRW 10,429,377, and KRW 112,762,431) for the Plaintiff in 204.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The Plaintiff shall file a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on November 17, 2015 after filing an objection on July 17, 2015, but was dismissed on April 5, 2016.”

【Non-contentious facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, Eul’s evidence No. 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. (i) In this case, where the Plaintiff did not file a tax base return of the transfer income tax by May 31, 2005, the statutory due date of return of the transfer income tax reverted to the year 2004, the Defendant cannot impose the transfer income tax after the expiration of the exclusion period of seven years from June 1, 2005 (see, e.g., Article 26-2(1)2 and (5) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 12-3(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). The instant disposition was imposed on April 23, 2015, where the aforementioned exclusion period of imposition has expired, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful, without further review as to whether “the above sales contract between the Plaintiff and F was normally rescinded,” which is a different argument of the Plaintiff.