1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 17, 2003, the Plaintiff: (a) acquired a total of KRW 1,653 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) including KRW 54 square meters for C site in Yongsan-si; (b) KRW 757 square meters for D site; (c) KRW 260 square meters for E site; and (d) KRW 582 square meters for F site in KRW 375 million; and (c) transferred the instant land to G on July 13, 2004 and filed a report thereon with the head of the competent tax office of distribution; and (d) filed a transfer income tax report thereon with G on July 13,

B. The director of the distribution tax office notified the Defendant of the acquisition value of G’s land in this case in the course of investigating the transfer income tax for the land of this case transferred to the Intervenor joining the Defendant, who is the former spouse of G, as a division of property according to divorce, as KRW 600 million. However, it is reasonable to view the transfer value of the land in this case as KRW 425 million reported by the Plaintiff as the transfer value of the land in this case to the head of the distribution tax office again.

C. However, the director of the distribution tax office re-verifications the Plaintiff’s transfer value of the instant land at KRW 600 million and notifies the Defendant, on the premise that the Defendant, on August 18, 2014, imposed a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 149,778,460 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 23, 2014, but was dismissed on January 28, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the whole purport of pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made on the basis of an invalid sales contract concluded between H and transferee G that was not delegated with the authority to sell the instant land by the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion was unlawful. Although the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to G and received only KRW 425 million, the Defendant deemed the transfer value of the instant land as KRW 600 million and the instant disposition was erroneous for calculating the transfer value.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s land of this case.