1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. 이 사건 처분이 이루어진 배경(☞ 다툼 없는 사실)

A. On January 20, 2013, the Plaintiff owned the second floor C of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B (hereinafter “instant officetel”) purchased at KRW 352 million in the voluntary auction procedure for the patrolman. On February 20, 2013, the Plaintiff owned the instant apartment on the following order: (a) on January 29, 2013, the amount of the maximum debt amount of the mortgagee, who is the debtor on the establishment date of the right to collateral security, 49.5 million won against the Plaintiff’s debt DF on February 20, 2013; and (b) on February 20, 2013, the E water guarantee G90 million won on February 20, 2013.

(c).

After that, the instant officetel was sold to H on June 2, 2015 995 million won in the discretionary auction procedure commenced according to the respective requests by F and D Fisheries Cooperatives.

다. 위와 같은 경위로 이 사건 오피스텔의 소유자가 바뀌자, 피고는 2017. 4. 6. 원고에게 별지 <양도소득세 결정결의서(☞을 1)>에 나오는 바와 같은 세액 산출과정{☞ 양도차익 6억 4,300만원(= 양도가액 9억 9,500만원 - 취득가액 3억 5,200만원)에서 양도소득 기본공제 250만원을 뺀 나머지 금액(과세표준)에 세율 38%를 적용하여 산출한 세액 2억 2,399만원 가산세 80,143,620원}을 거쳐 이 사건 오피스텔의 양도에 따른 양도소득세 304,133,620원을 부과하는 이 사건 처분을 하였다

[Post, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 14, 2017 against the instant disposition, but the appeal was not accepted on September 14, 2017 (Seoul High Court Decision 2017 Mine3273). 2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff is the cause of the instant claim. Of the sales price of the instant officetel, the sales price corresponding to F and G’s respective subordinate collateral establishment registration for the instant officetel was completed with respect to the instant officetel as a surety for E, from the transfer price of the instant officetel.