1. On January 2, 2014, the head of Seo-gu Daejeon District Tax Office (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on January 2, 2014, 38,998.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 29, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership preservation with respect to B apartment Nos. 101, 709, Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and transferred the instant apartment to C on April 15, 2003.

B. Around May 2003, the Plaintiff made a preliminary return of KRW 588,750 tax base of transfer income with the acquisition value of KRW 213,00,000,000,000 and the transfer value of the apartment of this case KRW 219,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for the remainder of KRW 190,755 (=21,950,000).

C. On January 2, 2014, the head of the Seo-gu Daejeon District Tax Office: (a) deemed the transfer value of the instant apartment as KRW 270 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) issued a notice of deduction of KRW 38,98,180 for the transfer income tax (including additional tax) for the year 2003 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 4-10, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 5-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The transfer value of the apartment of this case asserted by the Plaintiff is KRW 219 million.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) A’s evidence 2-3, 4-4, 4-3, 3-1, and 2-2’s each of the statements and arguments and the purport of the whole arguments, it can be acknowledged that the transfer value of the apartment of this case was 219 million won. 2) A’s evidence 4-4, 4-1 of the purchase price was 270 million won, and Eul’s evidence 4-2 of the contract as of March 19, 2003; A’s evidence 4-5, and 4-2 of the purchase price was 270 million won as of March 20, 2003; all of the brokers entered into a contract as of March 20, 2003 with C’s agent on behalf of the Plaintiff; and it is acknowledged that D’s testimony was established by witness D.

However, the contract of March 19, 2003 is stipulated in paragraph 3 of the special agreement, and "the date of the intermediate payment and the balance shall be adjusted under the agreement of the seller and the buyer, and the contract shall not be adjusted again."