1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 29, 1984, the Plaintiff inherited the real estate of this case (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). On February 29, 1984, the Plaintiff succeeded to the area of 22,542 square meters in South-gu I forest and field (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).

B. On May 16, 1994, the Plaintiff and the Nonparty’s inheritors completed the registration of ownership transfer in the names of the Plaintiff and Nonparty’s inheritors on the grounds of their respective inheritance shares (B, C, 6/29, D, E, G and Plaintiff 4/29, F1/29, respectively) among the instant real estate on February 29, 1984.

C. The Nonparty’s heir completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff on May 16, 1994 with respect to each of the instant real estate inheritance shares to the Plaintiff on the same day.

On February 7, 2011, the Plaintiff divided and transferred 21,882 square meters of the instant real estate.

E. The Plaintiff acquired shares 25/29 (hereinafter “instant shares”) from Nonparty’s heir at a cost, and calculated the acquisition value of the instant real estate as KRW 404,278,749 on the premise that the acquisition value cannot be confirmed, and reported and paid KRW 44,159,210 of the transfer income tax on the premise that the Plaintiff’s acquisition value cannot be confirmed.

However, the Defendant calculated the acquisition value of the pertinent real estate in KRW 46,529,729 by deeming that the Plaintiff had acquired the instant shares from Nonparty’s heir without compensation, and subsequently, on June 1, 2013, issued a correction and notification of capital gains tax of KRW 166,508,893 to the Plaintiff.

(f) The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 5, Eul 1, 4

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of this case should be revoked on the following grounds as it is unlawful.

In the first place, the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares by paying the price to the Nonparty’s heir, but it is not possible to confirm the current amount paid. Therefore, the converted amount under Article 114(7) of the Income Tax Act and Article 176-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be deemed the acquisition value