1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired, on February 6, 198, the area for exclusive use by its occupant 1301, Dong 1301, Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant apartment”) 84.35 square meters (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and transferred the apartment on June 25, 2013.

B. Under the premise that the instant apartment house constitutes “one house for one household” under Article 89(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 154(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24640, Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Plaintiff filed a return on and pays transfer income tax for the portion exceeding KRW 900,000,000 in transfer gains, among transfer gains, on the premise that the instant apartment house constitutes “one house for one household” subject to non-taxation of transfer income tax. However, the Defendant’s tax investigation conducted on transfer income tax against the Plaintiff from October 12, 2015 to October 31, 2015, reported that the instant apartment house owned by the Plaintiff constituted “one house for one household” under the premise that it falls under the instant 30-one house (hereinafter “the instant apartment house”).

On June 17, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on August 19, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] No. 18, No. 18, No. 1 and No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The Plaintiff’s instant apartment from the head of Gangnam-gu Office on June 14, 2013 (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(b).