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 January 2, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired 836 square meters of D forest land in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si (hereinafter “C”), and the said land was divided into 544 square meters of D forest land and 292 square meters of E forest land on February 20, 2012, and 544 square meters of D forest land was changed into 292 square meters of E forest land on February 7, 2013, and 292 square meters of E forest land on March 11, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as "the instant land" in addition to the sum of 544m2 and 292m2.

On May 7, 2012, the Plaintiff registered the instant land as “F” with the trade name of “F” (business name: construction business, category: housing construction and sales business).

C. The Plaintiff newly built, on the 54m2, one underground floor, one Dong(G building building), one underground floor, one Dong(G building building building) with the 4m2m2 on the ground, and one building with the 4m2m2 above the ground (the combination of each of the above buildings referred to as the “instant building”) and obtained approval for the use of the instant building on February 1, 2013.

The Plaintiff sold the instant building to each household during the period from September 2013 to December 2013. On June 30, 2014, when filing a global income tax return for the year 2013, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 102,743,389, won for global income tax for the year 2013, which applied the simplified expense rate to KRW 2,53,000 as a result of the sale of the instant building on the ground that the amount of income for the immediately preceding business year falls under a continuous business operator whose amount of income is less than the standard amount of income for the construction business under Article 143(4)2 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25193, Feb. 21, 2014; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act”).

E. The Defendant calculated the income amount applied by standard expense rate on the ground that the Plaintiff did not fall under the simplified expense rate subject to Article 143(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act as a business operator who started a new business in 2013 and did not fall under the scope of application of the simple expense rate under Article 143(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, on the grounds that the standard expense rate, other than the simple expense rate, should be applied.