1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On September 30, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Category C, 369.9 square meters and the five-story neighborhood living facilities and multi-household housing 824.19 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”), but transferred the acquisition value to D and E on March 31, 2015, and reported the transfer income tax with the acquisition value of KRW 3.5 billion as KRW 2.4 billion.

On March 24, 2016, the Defendant considered the acquisition value of the instant real estate as KRW 1.75 billion and imposed capital gains tax of KRW 205,284,170 for the year 2015 on the Plaintiff on March 24, 2016, but imposed KRW 169,242,950 for the reduction or correction of KRW 36,041,220 on May 2016.

(hereinafter) The transfer income tax remaining after the said reduction (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 17, 2016, but was dismissed on September 30, 2016.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the entire argument as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, the plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case was legitimate, on June 27, 2003, purchased the real estate of this case from Eul on June 27, 2003, and paid the down payment of KRW 200 million as a check, and the intermediate payment of KRW 650 million as a promissory note, and the balance of KRW 1.50 million as a loan and KRW 662,450,00 as a lease deposit, shall be paid KRW 87,50,000 remaining balance after deducting the lease deposit and KRW 662,50,00 as a deposit. However, upon the request of Eul, the sales contract entered the purchase price in KRW 1.7

Therefore, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.

Judgment

The following circumstances, i.e., the instant sales contract, which is a disposal document, shall clearly state that the acquisition value of the instant real estate is KRW 1.75 billion, and if the Plaintiff prepared a multiple contract with B at the time, it would be deemed that the sales contract with KRW 2.4 billion exists. The Plaintiff did not have any material relating thereto.