1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:

On April 29, 2004, the Plaintiff transferred to D the building of 172 square meters in Daegu-gu B, Daegu-gu and its ground and the building of 63 square meters in Daegu-gu and its ground (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant real estate”), which was owned by it, with the transfer value of the instant real estate KRW 390,000,000, and the calculated tax amount of KRW 54,536,514, and the amount of tax to be voluntarily paid as KRW 49,082,863, the transfer income tax for the real estate of this case was reported and paid on June 30, 2004.

B. The Defendant investigated the difference between the transfer value reported by the Plaintiff and the acquisition value reported by D thereafter, and confirmed that the actual transfer value was 710,00,000,000, and on July 4, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the remaining 117,06,580 won (hereinafter “instant disposition”) which deducts the already paid tax amount of KRW 54,536,514 from the total tax amount of KRW 171,60,63,406, and the total determined tax amount of KRW 171,60,82,826,826, and KRW 172,82,00 (additional tax amount of KRW 113,782,82,826).

C. On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the instant disposition.

(The Daegu District Court rendered a judgment of the first instance that dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on December 15, 2015. The reason is that “The Plaintiff’s assertion that the tax base and tax amount should be corrected according to the standard market price is lawful, since the transfer value of real estate reported by the Plaintiff is different from the fact and the transfer value of real estate was correct based on the actual transaction price confirmed by the head of the competent tax office.”

The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance (Tgu High Court 2016Nu4004), but the Daegu High Court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 14, 2016, on the same grounds as the judgment of the court of first instance.

The plaintiff is subject to a judgment.