1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 8, 2006, with respect to the land and its ground buildings in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the F, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 1, 2006 by one-half share in the name of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff C, and on December 1, 2006, the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of D on May 29, 2009.

On May 28, 2010, the Plaintiff submitted a transfer income tax return by applying the non-taxation of one house for one household.

B. On March 3, 2011, the Defendant: (a) exempted the Plaintiff from the application of one house non-taxation requirement for one household on the ground that the Plaintiff’s transfer of real estate shares did not meet the three-year possession and two-year residence requirements; and (b) issued a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 45,314,549 (including additional tax) for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. As to this, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Tax Tribunal by asserting that the instant disposition was unlawful, on November 3, 201, because he/she was the father of the instant real estate, and Party E was the de facto owner of the instant real estate, and Party E satisfied the requirements for non-taxation residence for one household.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, Eul Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff’s father, who is the Plaintiff’s father, is arbitrarily registered in the name of the Plaintiff, and thus, the actual owner of the instant real estate is E. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case, which the Plaintiff deemed a taxpayer of transfer income tax, is contrary to the principle

B. Where the registration of ownership transfer is completed with respect to the judgment real estate, not only the third party but also the former owner.