1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance that is to be used in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following circumstances, and thus, it shall be accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 【Additional part” hereinafter the Defendant’s preliminary return of capital gains tax on January 31, 2010, deemed that the acquisition value of the Plaintiff’s preliminary return of capital gains tax on January 31, 201 includes excessive acquisition value of KRW 41,486,00 on the stamp contract, and deemed the acquisition value as KRW 41,486,00 on December 23, 201 to the Plaintiff on December 23, 201, advance notice of taxation amounting to KRW 781,755,740 on the aggregate of capital gains tax accrued in 209

A) The facts that the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review on January 11, 2012 are as seen earlier. Meanwhile, barring any special circumstance, it is presumed that the agreement prepared by the parties to the transaction and approved by the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, etc., was prepared in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, and that the agreement was prepared differently from the actual ones (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2353, Apr. 9, 193). The Plaintiff lost relevant evidentiary materials while the actual acquisition value is not memory even though the purchaser of the land 1 and 2 was in a position to prove the actual acquisition value, the Plaintiff did not submit specific and direct evidence to substantiate the actual acquisition value. Accordingly, the Defendant’s on-site investigation conducted a field investigation and deemed the acquisition value of KRW 309,851,00, much higher than the acquisition value on the basis of B’s statement, which is the seller of land 1, and thus, the disposition in this case is merely more favorable to the Plaintiff.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.