1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On June 22, 1974, the Plaintiff acquired a total of 16 square meters prior to Songpa-gu Seoul, 21 square meters prior to C, 202 square meters prior to D, 226 square meters prior to E, 226 square meters prior to F, and 1,035 square meters prior to F (hereinafter “previous land”). As to the previous land, the said previous land was announced as a land readjustment project district on August 8, 1983, and the land substitution plan was announced as a land substitution plan and the land substitution plan was determined on December 22, 198.

B. On March 13, 1989, the Plaintiff owned a total of 328.7 square meters of land H in Songpa-gu Seoul by paying the settlement money for replotting and additionally acquiring 30 square meters of land (hereinafter “land substitution”). On December 2, 1992, the Plaintiff newly constructed a commercial building on the said ground and transferred it to KRW 1,80,000 on October 25, 2010. On December 30, 2010, the Plaintiff calculated the acquisition value by applying the previous land size and filed a return on and payment of capital gains tax of KRW 224,705,180.

C. On December 1, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 154,531,170 by correcting the transfer income tax for the year 2010 on the ground that the acquisition value was calculated excessively by applying the 1,035 square meters of the previous land area, which is the right area publicly announced as a planned land substitution, rather than the previous land area, pursuant to Article 77(1)2 (b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2012.

On February 7, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for a tax judgment against the Plaintiff, but received a decision of dismissal from the Tax Tribunal on May 29, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Of the Plaintiff’s previous land, the Plaintiff did not appear to have the land substitution details in the register of the register after receiving the land substitution settlement money. Therefore, the Defendant calculated the transfer income tax by applying Article 77(1)2(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, even though it is applied the formula under Article 77(2)2(b) of the Enforcement Rule.