1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On May 18, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased No. 1501 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) from the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate by completing the sales contract with the purchase price of KRW 200,000,000,000, and the loan interest of KRW 23,000,000,000, and the unpaid management fees, and KRW 100,000,000,00,000, in total, as well as KRW 345,005,00,00,000. Since the Defendant’s tax issues, the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract with the purchase price of KRW 150,00,000,00 for the instant real estate. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 28, 2009.

B. On April 5, 201, the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate to D in KRW 330,000,000. D sold the instant real estate to E and F in unregistered circumstances at KRW 350,000,000, and E and F completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate, and reported the purchase price to KRW 350,00,000.

The Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from the director of the North Incheon District Tax Office in KRW 150,00,000, but was subject to the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 97,110,600 on the premise that the Plaintiff sold the said real estate in KRW 350,000.

C. The Plaintiff had an excessive capital gains tax imposed on the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired excessive gains from transfer unlike the actual gains from transfer. We seek to confirm that the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate in KRW 345,00,000 to correct the tax imposed on the Defendant by mistake.

2. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

A. A lawsuit for confirmation is allowed only when there is a legal interest to immediately determine the existence of the present specific rights or legal relations, and a lawsuit seeking confirmation of simple facts, such as past facts, is not allowed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da23872, Dec. 8, 1992). However, the Plaintiff’s assertion.