1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the following contents among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

(1) In the second sentence, “309,847,510 won” shall be added to “309,847,510 won” (including additional tax for negligent tax returns of KRW 22,376,508, additional tax for unfaithful payment of KRW 63,705,919).

(2) On the 2nd page 18, the Plaintiff shall add “(1)” in front of the 3rd page 18, and shall add the following parts to the 3rd page 8:

(2) In light of the fact that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to deem that there is a tax-bearing force on the instant taxation because the Plaintiff was entirely unable to obtain transfer margin from the Defendant to obtain the instant disposition, and that it is difficult to expect the Plaintiff to pay the transfer income tax on his own because it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff has a duty to report the transfer income tax with respect to the bid of the instant land, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a duty to pay the additional tax and the additional tax at least to the Plaintiff.

(4) On the 5th page, the following shall be added:

(3) Under the tax law, in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a tax return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, the taxpayer’s intentional negligence is not considered, and the statutory site error, etc. does not constitute justifiable grounds that do not constitute a breach of duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du10780, Jun. 24, 2004). However, as seen above, it cannot be deemed that there is a serious and apparent defect in the disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax of this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion alone does not cause the Plaintiff to be negligent in performing his/her duty to pay taxes.