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 1/6 shares out of 683 square meters in Pyeongtaek-si B, 2.5/6 shares out of 31 square meters in C, 5.5/66 shares out of 31 square meters in D 1,861 square meters, and 1/6 shares out of 1,861 square meters in D 1,861 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land shares are indicated as land, each land is specified by the sequence, and each land is specified only by the sequence, and each land is collectively referred to as “the instant land”) on March 5, 2014.

B. On March 28, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) deducted the amount of special deduction for long-term possession from each transfer margin of the instant land from each transfer margin, and reported and paid the transfer income tax following the transfer of the instant land, under the premise that the instant land is “land, the use of which is prohibited or restricted under the statutes after acquiring the land,” as prescribed by Article 104-3(2) of the former Income Tax Act and Article 168-14(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26067, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply).

C. However, as a result of the tax investigation conducted against the Plaintiff, the Defendant denied the deduction of each special deduction for long-term possession from each transfer margin, deeming that the land is land for non-business use, and that the deduction for acquisition value, necessary expenses, and special deduction for long-term holding was more recognized than that reported by the Plaintiff. On November 14, 2016, the Defendant issued a correction notice (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on November 14, 2016, of capital gains tax of 40,799,060 (including additional tax) reverted to the Plaintiff.

On December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal for adjudication on the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 28, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 10, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion is summary of 2007.