1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s transfer income tax attributed to the Plaintiff on August 1, 2014 for the year 2006, 330,181.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 27, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant transfer”) to D on February 22, 2006, by taking over the building of 551.9 square meters and its ground building of 1,516.93 square meters from Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, and after partially extending the said building (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and to D on February 22, 2006.

B. On March 28, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a transfer income tax on the transfer of this case with the Defendant stating “1 billion won in acquisition value, 1.1 billion won in transfer value, 63, 565, 100 won in necessary expenses, 3,565,100 won in transfer loss,” and filed a return with the Defendant on the transfer of this case.

C. D, the transferee of the instant real estate in 2012, stated the acquisition value of the instant real estate as KRW 1.7 billion, and reported capital gains tax. Upon examining the actual transfer value for the instant transfer in 2014, the Defendant confirmed that the transfer value was KRW 1.477 billion (the transfer value at the time of the sales contract was determined as KRW 1.7 billion but the said amount was actually paid only) and confirmed that the transfer value was KRW 1.45 billion, and on August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a corrective notice of KRW 1.4745 billion of transfer value and KRW 1.5824 million of acquisition value (i.e., the part of the building extended by KRW 1.82 billion) to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 1.82 billion of acquisition value) for the year 2006, KRW 330,181,260 of transfer income tax (i.e., the calculated tax amount was KRW 175,097,4050.

On October 31, 2014, the plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal decided to dismiss the request on March 11, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap No. 1, Eul No. 1, Eul No. 2, 3 (including Serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) In this case, the Plaintiff’s “underreporting of transfer income tax” etc. is the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Law No. 1040, Dec. 27, 2010