1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 30, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer from D with respect to the shares of 1,496/16,967 (a total of the above land and shares together; hereinafter referred to as “land in dispute”) among the shares of 384 square meters and 1,496/16,967 square meters in Yongsan-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City and Do Do 635 square meters, on October 21, 2003. On March 24, 2014, the key land was transferred to E and third parties, including E, for the purchase price of KRW 760,000.

B. On September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) filed a preliminary return of capital gains tax on the transfer value of the pertinent land in KRW 760 million; (b) KRW 700 million; and (c) paid capital gains tax on the transfer value of the relevant land in KRW 4,624,350.

C. After that, the Defendant discovered the difference between the transfer value (including KRW 387 million) reported by D, the former owner of the pertinent land, and the acquisition value reported by D (including KRW 700 million) by the Plaintiff. After conducting a tax investigation with the Plaintiff from September 10, 2015 to September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff’s acquisition value is unclear on November 18, 2015. As such, by applying the conversion acquisition value under Article 114(7) of the Income Tax Act, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of tax investigation that the Plaintiff would additionally correct and notify the transfer income tax of KRW 170,345,620 (including additional tax) for the year 2014.

As a result of the above tax investigation, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review against the Defendant on December 17, 2015. On January 27, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision of re-assessment under Article 81-15(4)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 16097, Dec. 31, 2018) on the ground that re-audit of facts is necessary because it is difficult to readily conclude that the acquisition value reported by the Plaintiff is unclear.

E. Accordingly, from February 17, 2016 to March 7, 2016, the Defendant re-audited the Plaintiff’s capital gains tax, and completed re-audit to rectify KRW 387 million that D reported in the transfer value as the actual acquisition value of the disputed land. On April 15, 2016, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 169,414,060 (including additional taxes) of the capital gains tax for the year 2014.

(f) The original disposition (hereinafter referred to as “original disposition”).