1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 29, 1989 to November 24, 2001, the Plaintiff purchased a total of 1,669 square meters of land located in Cheongju-si, U.S., in three times as indicated in the following table (this parcel number before the change of the following table was changed once in 1997, and then converted into B in 2006) as follows. After constructing the building on the land, the Plaintiff transferred the above land and buildings to Daju-si, Inc., Ltd., for KRW 1,525,000,000 on October 15, 2012.

CD 136.5 140,000,000 documents evidencing the acquisition value (cost) reported on a parcel number (land size) size (land size) changed on December 29, 1899 on the date of transfer before the date of acquisition, which was 197, (A) F B B B 414.5 GH 29.20 on May 20, 296, 136, KD 175,047,453 sales contract (K-Plaintiff) F B 414.5 G H 414 May 24, 2014, L MM 508,78,99,89,896 (L-Plaintiff) LM on November 24, 2014

B. On December 28, 2012, the Plaintiff reported KRW 26,287,882 of the capital gains tax calculated by applying the acquisition value of each of the above lands as the conversion value, but submitted a sales contract for each of the above lands as stated in the evidence column in the tax investigation process, and claimed the actual contract price as the acquisition value.

C. The Defendant deemed Nos. 2 and 3 of the sales contract submitted by the Plaintiff as the actual transaction price and recognized the agreed amount as the actual transaction price. However, the sales contract No. 1 is not the purchaser under the contract, and since the subject matter of the sale is not the land acquired by the Plaintiff but the J land, the purchase price of the land No. 1 is calculated as 68,574,000 won for the conversion price, and on July 1, 2013, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff (including additional taxes) of the transfer income tax of 109,196,870 won for the transfer income tax of 2012 for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 is the first plaintiff, I, and three K members of Cheongju-si J. 26 September 26, 1989.