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 March 23, 200, the Plaintiff refers to the 7 units, 101, 102, 201, 202, 202, 301, 302, 302, and 101, including the 101, 101, 200, 200.

(2) On May 12, 2014 and July 31, 2014, the transfer value and acquisition value were the actual transaction value and the preliminary return of transfer income tax was made on July 31, 2014.

B. On September 10, 1990, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 3,187 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”) and was sold during the voluntary auction on October 8, 2014, and filed an application for reduction of capital gains tax on October 29, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff was farmland with self-sufficient for at least eight years, while filing a preliminary return on capital gains tax on October 29, 2014.

C. After investigating the transfer income tax on the instant commercial building and land from May 2, 2016 to 20th of the same month, the Defendant corrected the transfer income tax on the instant commercial building as the conversion price on the grounds that the actual transaction price cannot be confirmed as to the acquisition price of the instant commercial building. In the instant case of land, the Plaintiff denied the cultivation fact for at least eight years and excluded the transfer income tax reduction or exemption. On July 1, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction of KRW 70,432,080, the transfer income tax on the instant commercial building reverted to the year 2014, respectively.

(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”) D.

On November 22, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but all appeals were dismissed on February 23, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1 to 4, Eul 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is procedural defect in violation of Article 81-9(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes due to the Plaintiff’s failure to notify in writing during the extension of the scope of tax investigation, and the Plaintiff’s imposition disposition of capital gains tax on the instant land for about twenty