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 June 13, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the land and building B in Dong-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the ground of inheritance, but transferred KRW 560,000 to C and D on August 30, 2013 (a sales contract concluded on July 23, 2013). On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff scheduled preliminary return to the Defendant and paid KRW 3,174,440, capital gains tax to the Defendant.

B. In calculating the standard market price of the instant real estate, when the Plaintiff reported the acquisition value at the initial standard market price, the part “house” was normally calculated, but the part “other buildings” was calculated by including the area of the relevant house. The Defendant denied KRW 102,716,700, which was excessively appropriated on February 5, 2016, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 34,212,610, which was additionally determined and announced the transfer income tax for the year 2013.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On October 24, 2016, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal through the procedure of filing an objection, but was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In evaluating the value of the property acquired by the Plaintiff’s assertion and inheritance as of the date of commencing the inheritance, the value, such as sales outside the evaluation period, should be recognized as the market price pursuant to the proviso of Article 49 of

The time of occurrence of the price of sale, etc. is one year and one month from the date of acquisition (as of June 13, 2012) to the date of sales contract (as of July 23, 2013), and seven months from the boundary of the evaluation period (six months after the commencement date of inheritance), and the purpose and status of use during the period of possession are identical, and there are no special circumstances of price fluctuation, so the relevant sales price should be recognized as the acquisition value.

The plaintiff calculated the acquisition value based on the original standard market price and calculated the acquisition value on the "other buildings" portion, resulting in gains on transfer.