1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On March 25, 2003, the Plaintiff received a donation from his father B of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment D 711 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on May 6, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the remainder of 1/3 shares to D’s spouse E, and filed a transfer income tax on May 28, 2009 by applying the non-taxation provisions on one house transfer income tax for one household to the Defendant on May 28, 2009.

From September 23, 2015 to October 12, 2015, the Defendant: (a) confirmed that “the Plaintiff, as at the time of transfer of the instant apartment, was a nonresident, who was pretended to reside in the Republic of Korea and resided in the instant apartment for at least two years in order to evade capital gains tax without residing in the Republic of Korea during the period of possession of the said apartment; (b) reported capital gains tax along with a resident registration abstract; and (c) even if the Plaintiff sold the instant apartment at KRW 750 million, the Plaintiff actually received only KRW 385 million; and (d) on November 3, 2015, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff evaded national tax by fraudulent or other unlawful means, and notified the Plaintiff of the rectification of KRW 142,173,710 for capital gains tax reverted to the year 2009.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 4, 2016, but was dismissed on October 20, 2016.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff alleged the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, and the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is legitimate only for the purpose of maintaining the status of students and receiving new admission documents for the registration of ESVS (U.S. student registration information system).

In addition, the fact that the Plaintiff received only KRW 385 million out of the purchase price of the apartment of this case 750 million, according to the father's intention.