1. The part of the instant lawsuit regarding the revocation claim against the imposition of local income tax shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remainder.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 17, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s real estate in KRW 231,110,000 during the auction procedure for the sale of G real estate G real estate at Changwon District Court, the sales price of KRW 231,110,00 in the sale procedure for the sale of the land for B, 3,029 square meters for land for C, 428 square meters for land for D, 75 square meters for land for D, 705 square meters for land for E, 702 square meters for land for E, and each of the above land (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On August 5, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred each of the instant real estate to H with the total purchase price of KRW 520,000,000, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to each of the instant real estate to H on October 1, 2009.

C. After investigating the transfer income tax on each of the instant real estate, the Defendant imposed and collected KRW 113,704,520 (including additional tax 43,904,324) and KRW 11,370,450 of the local income tax on the ground that the Plaintiff transferred each of the instant real estate to H and did not report the transfer income tax on June 10, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not transfer the instant real estate to H, and that the transfer income tax on the Plaintiff was not reported.

(hereinafter “Disposition of imposition of transfer income tax of this case” and “Disposition of imposition of local income tax of this case”) D.

On August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition of imposition of capital gains tax and requested the Tax Tribunal for a trial on August 6, 2014, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on November 6, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff transferred each of the instant real estate was paid KRW 30,00,000 according to an investment contract (Evidence A7) concluded with H with H while transferring the instant real estate. Therefore, the transfer value of each of the instant real estate cannot be deemed as KRW 520,00,000, and the Plaintiff did not acquire gains from transfer at all while transferring the instant real estate.

Therefore, it is true.