1. On October 5, 2012, the Defendant’s principal income tax for the Plaintiff for the year 2012, KRW 38,692,619, additional tax for the capital gains tax for the Plaintiff, and KRW 9,177.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2 (hereinafter “the instant real estate Nos. 1 and 2”). On February 17, 2012, the ownership transfer registration for the instant real estate No. 1 was completed on February 3, 2012, and on February 29, 2012, the ownership transfer registration for the instant real estate No. 2 was completed on January 27, 2012.

B. The Defendant calculated capital gains tax based on the actual transaction value at the time of transfer on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not report capital gains tax even after transferring the instant real estate 1, 2, the total amount of KRW 970,00,000,000, which is the transfer amount recorded in each copy of each of the register of the instant real estate 1, 2, as the actual transaction value at the time of transfer.” On October 5, 2012, the Defendant decided to increase the tax base of capital gains tax for the year 2012 reverted to the Plaintiff’s 153,121,770, total amount of KRW 47,870,507 (including additional tax amount of KRW 9,177,888), and notified the Plaintiff thereof.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On April 4, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination against the instant disposition with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. However, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request on June 24, 2013.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9 (including the number of each class; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's entries and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The transfer of real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of the Plaintiff’s assertion was made by D who misrepresented the Plaintiff’s agent, and the Plaintiff did not sell the said real estate or receive the sales price.

Therefore, the disposition of this case based on the premise that the Plaintiff transferred the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination Nos. 4 to 8, 10 to 10.