1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the records of this case’s judgment subject to review.

A. On December 31, 2003, B, the mother of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) acquired from H, Changwon-si C apartment D (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and transferred it to I and J on June 17, 2008.

B. In addition to the instant apartment, in Jinju-si, B shared with the Plaintiff a 1/2 share of the two-story neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “E real estate”). The said 2nd floor neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “E building”) constituted a commercial building, and did not separately file a transfer income tax on the instant apartment disposal, deeming that the said 2nd floor living facilities (hereinafter “E building”) is not a two-family housing owner for one household.

C. On February 1, 2011, the Defendant confirmed the transfer income tax for the year 2008 of the instant apartment transfer at KRW 37,789,970 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) and sent it to F by registered mail at the time when the notice for payment was sent, but all of them were returned. On March 18, 2011, the third registered mail sent on May 2, 2011 was returned and served by public notice on the ground of the return due to the absence of the addressee.

B In default of the capital gains tax, the Defendant seized B’s share of each E’s real estate on September 15, 201.

After that, on April 27, 2012, B donated to the Plaintiff the shares owned by the Plaintiff among the real estate E, and died on November 25, 2014.

E. On June 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but the Changwon District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on May 16, 2017.

(2016Guhap634). The judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal was rendered on December 13, 2017 (hereinafter “the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal”), and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive by dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on May 15, 2018 (Supreme Court Decision 2018Du3760).

2. Re-deliberation.