1. The Defendant’s transfer income tax amounting to KRW 41,786,144 (including additional taxes) for the Plaintiff on August 1, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 15, 1986, the Plaintiff acquired land B and its ground buildings in Seongdong-gu, Seoul (200 square meters of neighborhood living facilities from underground 1 to 2 floors above ground, and 5.14 square meters of housing with three floors above the above land and buildings; hereinafter the same shall apply). The instant real estate was expropriated in a Housing Redevelopment Project Association in a Zone C on December 10, 2010, and on February 2, 2011, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 401,543,209, which is the conversion price, based on the premise that the Defendant was unaware of the actual transaction price at the time of the acquisition of the instant real estate, and paid KRW 118,235,360, capital gains tax for the year 2010.

B. From July 18, 2013 to July 31, 2013, the Defendant conducted an on-site investigation of capital gains tax for the year 2010. After determining the acquisition value of the commercial building and its appurtenant land as KRW 150,373,794 according to the Plaintiff’s account books, the Plaintiff’s acquisition value of the entire real estate of this case is not verified, and the acquisition value of the real estate of this case has been appropriated as excessively. Of the real estate of this case, the acquisition value of the commercial building and appurtenant land of this case is KRW 109,502,82, which is the Plaintiff’s return value, KRW 143,589,562, which is the Plaintiff’s account book value (i.e., the amount obtained by subtracting the cumulative depreciation of the building from KRW 150,373,794, the total acquisition value of the building of this case from KRW 253,092,384, and the additional tax for rural development tax for 205,20138.7.

C. On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on April 7, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, 4, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion is converted to a person subject to double-entry bookkeeping in 2001.