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 February 11, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on January 28, 2008 with respect to B forest No. 38,281 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff reported acquisition tax of KRW 10,200,000 with the acquisition value of KRW 5,100,000, and special rural development tax of KRW 1,020,000 with the acquisition value of KRW 10,200,000, and registration tax of KRW 10,200,000,000, and local education tax of KRW 2,040,00.

(B) No. 2-1, hereinafter referred to as “instant report”).

On February 11, 2008, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,200,00 for the registration tax and KRW 2,040,00 for the local education tax, and paid KRW 10,380,540 for the acquisition tax and KRW 1,038,050 for the special rural development tax including the additional tax on May 28, 2008.

(C) The payment of the registration tax and the local education tax on February 11, 2008 and the payment of the acquisition tax and the special tax for rural development on May 28, 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On March 30, 2011, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 13,80,000,000 on the ground that the actual transaction amount of the instant land was KRW 230,000,000 on the ground that the false report was made by the Plaintiff, under Articles 27(1) and 51(4) of the former Licensed Real Estate Agents’ Business Affairs and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014).

On May 30, 201, the Plaintiff filed an objection, and received a decision that the Plaintiff was not subject to an administrative fine on the ground that it was not recognized as intention or negligence.

(U.S. District Court 2010No. 2586) d.

On March 19, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration that corrected the transaction amount from the previous KRW 510,000 to KRW 230,000,00 on the instant land due to an error in application.

【Fact-finding, Gap’s 1, 3 through 6 evidence, Eul’s 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition regarding the instant safety defense, the Defendant made an erroneous payment against the local government under the former Local Tax Act.