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 September 16, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired and owned B 1,412 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from C before Chuncheon-si, and transferred the same amount to KRW 360,000,000 on June 13, 2013.

B. On August 31, 2013, when the Plaintiff reported the tax base and amount of capital gains tax for the transfer of the instant land to the Defendant for the year 2013, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer value at the above KRW 360,000,000 based on the actual transaction value, and paid the acquisition value at the above KRW 350,000,000, respectively.

C. Considering that the acquisition value of the instant land is unclear, the Defendant re-calculated the tax base by converting the acquisition value into the standard market price under Article 114(7) of the Income Tax Act, not the actual transaction value, based on the amount of KRW 52,956,00, not the actual transaction value. On June 5, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction of the capital gains tax of KRW 133,236,200 (including additional tax)

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on August 12, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on December 3 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) The Defendant recognized the actual acquisition value of the instant land submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of filing a report on transfer income tax and calculated the acquisition value as a conversion price, not the actual transaction value, by deeming that the actual acquisition value is unclear, by deeming that it is impossible to believe the sales contract (Evidence A8) at the time of its acquisition.

However, the above sales contract was submitted by mistake as to D's loss on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the actual sales contract (Evidence A No. 4) was found later, and as stated in the above contract, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 305,000,000, including the value of pine trees on the ground from C, a death penalty, to the value of the instant land on the ground.

As above.