1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s global income tax for the Plaintiff on April 5, 2013 69,679 on global income for the year 2007.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was awarded a bid price on March 6, 2001 and acquired ownership on the land in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, C, D, and E 4 land (total area of 1,547.7 square meters, hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On the ground of the instant land, Gtel was not owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant officetel”). However, around May 207, the Plaintiff transferred 1/4 shares of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff to the said officetel residents, and paid KRW 582,00,000 for the transfer price, and KRW 750,000 for the land use of the said land from March 6, 2001 to the transfer date (hereinafter “instant key income”). However, the Plaintiff did not pay the comprehensive income tax on the said land portion.

C. On April 5, 2013, the Defendant deemed that the instant key income received by the Plaintiff constituted “other income” under Article 21(1) of the Income Tax Act as the land rent, which is the consideration for the creation of statutory superficies, and issued a tax payment notice (hereinafter “instant tax payment notice”) to the Plaintiff on April 5, 2013, after correcting the global income tax of KRW 69,679,270 for the year 2007, and served by public notice on May 27, 2013.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 21, 2013, but was dismissed on March 10, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Defendant’s employee visited twice the Plaintiff’s domicile on May 9, 2013 and on the 12th of the same month, but served the instant tax payment notice due to the Plaintiff’s absence. However, although the Defendant’s employee was not clear whether the employee in charge was actually visiting the Plaintiff’s domicile, and the Defendant’s employee sent letters with the content of service by public notice as the Plaintiff’s handphone, the Plaintiff did not receive such letters.