1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on April 29, 201, on the ground of land expropriation on April 28, 2011, for the land expropriation, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership to the Iron-gun, Gangwon-do, the Hawon-gun, Gangwon-do, and 65 lots (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”).

C. On August 1, 2012, the Defendant rendered a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 372,245,260 on the ground that the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to the Plaintiff and did not report capital gains tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case without undergoing an examination or a request for adjudication under Articles 55 and 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes regarding the disposition of this case.

B. (1) In the case of an administrative litigation seeking revocation of a tax imposition disposition, it must undergo a prior trial procedure, such as a request for examination or a request for trial, under Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had undergone the prior trial procedure as stipulated in the Framework Act on National Taxes. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit is unlawful due to its failure to comply

D. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff submitted a document to the Defendant on October 12, 2012, which stated the Plaintiff’s name and address, to the effect that he/she is dissatisfied with the disposition of capital gains tax imposed by the Defendant, and submitted the document to the Defendant on August 7, 2012, which became aware of the disposition of this case, and that the delivery of the document should be deemed an administrative appeal required by the Framework Act on National Taxes, etc.

According to each description of Gap's evidence 7, Eul's evidence 4 to 11 (including each number).