1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 28, 1987, the Plaintiff acquired and owned the Gangnam-gu Seoul apartment and C (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and transferred the purchase price of KRW 1.570 million to Nonparty D on April 3, 2017.

B. On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff’s transfer of apartment in this case under Article 89(1)3 of the Income Tax Act.

First, it is deemed that the transfer of one house by one household under Article 154(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28293, Sep. 19, 2017; hereinafter the same) constitutes the transfer of one house by one household. Of the transfer value, the transfer gains calculated based on the excess of KRW 900,000,000 and reported and paid KRW 26,483,730,00

C. At the time of the transfer of the instant apartment, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F building and Gho Lake (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) owned by the Plaintiff’s spouse constituted “house”; and (b) concluded that the transfer of the instant apartment does not constitute one house for one household; and (c) on November 1, 2017, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax of 385,698,940 (including additional taxes) for the transfer income tax of 2017.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On January 23, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on July 6, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 88 subparag. 7 of the Income Tax Act stating that the instant officetel does not constitute “house” provides that “Housing refers to a building actually used for residential purposes regardless of whether permission is granted or the usage classification in the public record book. In such cases, if the purpose of use is not clear, it shall be determined by the public record book.”

By March 3, 2015, E, the Plaintiff’s spouse, leased the instant officetel to Nonparty H by March 3, 2015, and thereafter, he/she left the instant officetel by April 6, 2017, to Nonparty I again on April 7, 2017.