1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 22, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired, from the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Site C 292.7 square meters and its ground multi-households (hereinafter “instant land”; multi-households housing; “instant building”; and “the instant real estate” by combining the housing site and multi-households.

B. On May 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that he transferred the instant land to D and E in KRW 3.5 billion on March 20, 2008. The Plaintiff calculated the transfer price of the instant land at KRW 3.5 billion on the actual transaction price, KRW 2 billion on the actual transaction price, KRW 134,419,00 on the actual transaction price, and paid capital gains tax at KRW 431,108,244 on the preliminary return.

C. On March 7, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective notice to additionally pay KRW 237,114,870 (including additional tax 14,382,502, additional tax 14,502, additional tax 76,217,196, and additional tax 76,217,196) related to the instant building among the necessary expenses reported by the Plaintiff on the ground that the transfer value was deducted from the necessary expenses, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s removal of the instant building and transfer only the instant land was not included in the acquisition value, and that the acquisition value and necessary expenses related to the instant building were deducted from the transfer value.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The plaintiff was under the procedure of the previous trial.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff decided to sell the instant real estate as well as the instant land at the time of concluding a sales contract with D and E, and set the sales price of KRW 3.5 billion for the instant real estate. However, since the Plaintiff’s new construction of the building and the purpose of the leasing business was to run, the lessee who was residing in the instant building and the removal of the instant building.