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 July 29, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired B Apartment 2 and 602, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant previous house”), but the instant previous house was reconstructed, and on August 28, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment 311 Dong 1102 (hereinafter “instant newly-built house”).

B. The Plaintiff transferred the newly-built house of this case on April 7, 2006. The Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax for the year 2006 on the ground that it was transferred within five years from the date of acquiring the previous house of this case on the ground that it was transferred within five years from the date of acquiring the previous house of this case, under Article 99-3 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6762 of December 11, 2002; hereinafter

C. However, on May 8, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice of correction of capital gains tax amounting to KRW 87,652,280 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on May 8, 2012, deeming that the capital gains accrued from the acquisition date of the previous house of this case to the date prior to the acquisition date of the newly-built house of this case

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). . [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 3, 4, and Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Although Article 99-3(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act clearly prescribes that the total amount of capital gains tax shall be reduced for a transfer within five years from the date of acquisition of newly-built house asserted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant erred in interpreting Article 99-3(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and thus, the instant disposition is null

B. In order for a defective administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it must be objectively apparent that the defect is a serious breach of the important part of the law and its purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law are examined from a teleological perspective in determining whether the defect is significant and apparent, and at the same time, the specific case itself.