1. The Defendant imposed capital gains tax (including additional tax) for the year 2009 on the Plaintiff on January 4, 201, 154,750.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 10, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the land and the building on the land (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant real estate”) other than Gyeonggi-gun B and 16 parcels of land (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) and reported the transfer value to KRW 3,353,657,640, and the acquisition value to KRW 3,1956,816,666.

B. However, on January 4, 2011, the Defendant denied the purchase price of KRW 130 million, civil construction cost of KRW 87,50 million, and issued a revised notification of capital gains tax of KRW 278,186,480 (additional income tax of KRW 189,953,216, additional tax of KRW 75,981,286, additional tax of KRW 12,251,982, and additional tax of KRW 12,251,982 (hereinafter “instant initial disposition”).

C. After that, the original disposition of this case was corrected to reduce the amount of KRW 262,414,160 ( = KRW 179,183,451 as the principal tax of capital gains tax = KRW 71,673,380 as the additional tax for insincereful payment of KRW 11,57,332) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

In other words, with respect to the instant real estate, the Plaintiff spent additional KRW 130 million in connection with the instant land permission, and paid KRW 86.5 million in civil engineering construction cost, ③ paid KRW 270 million in real estate consulting cost, ④ paid KRW 870 million in the construction cost for the instant real estate to C (State). The above expenses should be deducted as necessary expenses, and ⑤ In addition, it is unlawful to impose penalty tax by applying the tax rate of KRW 40 million in bad faith on the premise that the Plaintiff did not underreporting the tax base, under the premise that the Plaintiff did not underreporting the tax base.

B. (1) The Plaintiff is the real estate of this case from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).