1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 8, 2004, the Plaintiff sold 3,50,000,000,000 land and building (hereinafter “instant real estate”) outside C and 2 lots to a limited liability company B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the said company as of June 16, 2004. On August 25, 2004, the Plaintiff reported the transfer amount of KRW 1,950,000,000,000, and the acquisition amount of KRW 1,373,191,789, and the transfer income tax amount of KRW 514,36,984, and paid KRW 158,681,837.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff became aware that the actual transaction amount of the instant real estate was reported to the tax authority on July 20, 2007, and paid KRW 553,652,170,170,000, acquisition amount, and KRW 1,667,202, and capital gains tax (including additional tax) calculated as KRW 1,667,202,598, and paid KRW 712,337,375, which was calculated as capital gains tax (including additional tax).

C. From August 21, 2007 to August 31, 2007 in relation to the transfer of the instant real estate, the head of Pyeongtaek-si Tax Office under the Defendant notified the Plaintiff to pay a fine of KRW 198,647,130 (the amount that reduced the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the amount of the original notification disposition by applying the proviso of Article 7 of the Regulations on the Determination of Penalty Amount) on the ground that the instant real estate falls under the tax evasion under Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (hereinafter “instant notification disposition”). On September 12, 2007, the Plaintiff paid the said amount on September 12, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties’ assertion 1) According to the provision on the determination of an amount equivalent to the penalty, which is the direction of the National Tax Service (amended by the National Tax Service Directive No. 1638, Mar. 1, 2007), the Plaintiff’s assertion that the fine should be exempted if all the taxes that were not paid were revised and paid within the time limit for the commencement of tax investigation and the revised report under the Framework Act on National Taxes.