1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial.

On July 20, 1998, the Plaintiff acquired and owned the wife-population B apartment C (hereinafter “instant housing”) at Taenam-si, Young-si, and transferred it to D on December 29, 2006 at KRW 130 million.

(hereinafter referred to as “transfer of this case”). B.

As the Plaintiff did not report capital gains tax, on August 17, 2009, the Defendant calculated the transfer value as the actual transaction value and imposed KRW 5,774,400 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the wife population at the time of the instant transfer, which is the location of the instant housing, falls under the designated area provided for in Article 104-2 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter the same) at the time of the instant transfer, on the grounds that the transfer value falls under the designated area.

C. Although the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the instant disposition (Seoul District Court 2010Guhap780, Daejeon District Court 2010), the Plaintiff appealed against the said judgment, but the judgment dismissing the appeal on December 16, 2010 was pronounced (Re-adjudication Decision). The Plaintiff filed a new appeal against the judgment subject to a retrial (Supreme Court 201Du1283, Apr. 28, 201) but the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive by dismissing the final appeal on April 28, 201

2. On July 19, 2003, the Plaintiff’s assertion-making city was designated and announced as a designated area under Article 104-2(2) of the former Income Tax Act on October 31, 2005, and the wife population, flag interest area, and water area was newly established due to the administrative district reorganization on October 31, 2005. If the administrative unit area was newly established, it should be re-designated accordingly, and as long as the administrative unit area was not followed, it does not fall under the designated area.

Nevertheless, the judgment subject to review is determined to be a designated area at the time of the transfer of this case by the wife population at the time of the time of the transfer of this case, which is determined by Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act (when the judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment