1. On December 22, 2015, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 204,653,110 on the Plaintiff for the year 2015.

Details of the disposition

A. On September 5, 1985, the Plaintiff acquired 3/5 shares of B, 95.90 square meters in Jung-gu, Seoul, and 36.36 square meters in a single-story house (hereinafter “the instant building”) on the ground, by inheritance (Nuna shall acquire shares of 2/5), and entered into a contract on October 14, 2014 on the transfer of 991.8 million won (total transfer price shall be KRW 1.65 billion), with the Plaintiff paid the full payment of the purchase price on March 19, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership on March 24, 2015.

B. On March 24, 2015, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 11,958,280 to the Defendant for the transfer income tax for the year 2015, by applying the provisions on the calculation of transfer margin on expensive houses under Article 160 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

C. However, on September 3, 2015, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant building was a house on the public register; (b) deemed that it was actually used for business purposes; and (c) excluded the provision on the calculation of capital gains tax on the said expensive house; (b) notified the Plaintiff of the pre-determination of capital gains tax for the year 2015; (c) on September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-approval of capital gains tax on September 30, 2015; (d) on December 22, 2015, the non-adopted decision was made; and (e) on December 22, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to correct and notify the Plaintiff KRW 204,653,110 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 2, 2016, but was dismissed on October 13, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including angle, number, hereinafter the same), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the structure of the instant building was originally owned by the Plaintiff and C, even though the Plaintiff and C had the instant building leased to the printing company for about twenty (20) years, but the residential function was maintained and maintained, and the Plaintiff’s family actually resided from around 1941 to November 1, 198.