1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On November 9, 1989, the Plaintiff donated 14,975 square meters of forest E (hereinafter “forest land before division”) from the Plaintiff, the former husband of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “D”) and divorced on January 15, 1990.

On April 25, 2002, forest land before subdivision was divided into E forest land 13,845 square meters and F forest land 1,130 square meters. On July 29, 2010, E forest land was divided into 13,667 square meters of G forest land and 9,850 square meters of G forest land (hereinafter “instant land”) and H forest land into 3,817 square meters.

On March 12, 2014, the Plaintiff sold the instant land in the purchase price of KRW 1.7 billion to the Young Pharma Co., Ltd., and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said land on June 10, 2014.

The Plaintiff filed a transfer income tax on KRW 217,061,769 with the acquisition value of the instant land as KRW 217,061,769. However, the Defendant deemed that the actual acquisition value of the instant land was not verified by objective evidence, and thus, the acquisition value should be calculated according to the conversion value, and pursuant to the proviso to Article 97(2)2 of the Income Tax Act, the Plaintiff applied KRW 524,745,00, which is the larger amount between the sum of the conversion value and the estimated estimated deduction amount, and the sum of capital expenditure and transfer expenses, which is the larger amount, to KRW 524,745,00,00, the acquisition value of the instant land as KRW 524,74,094, March 4, 2015, imposed KRW 74,58,510,510, which

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 18, 2015, but was dismissed on February 4, 2016.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3; and the purport of the entire argument as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff is entitled to KRW 350 million as consolation money while divorced with the former husband B; among them, the amount of KRW 20 million is paid in cash and the remainder of KRW 330 million is paid in kind.