1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff).

1. The following facts are either not disputed between the parties or acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

In 190, the Defendant: (a) newly constructed five-story apartment on the land B in 1990, and sold it to three-household units; (b) newly constructed six-household units on the land B; (c) newly built six-household units on the land B to sell four-household units; (d) newly built and sold one-story unit of multi-household units on the land B; (d) newly built and sold six-story units in the name of G owner on the land B; and (e) filed a final tax base return on global income tax for the tax year 1990, around May 191, 199; (c) calculated the amount of income for the pertinent year based on the purchase price of the remaining real estate excluding three-household units on the land B; (d) calculated the amount of income for the pertinent year based on the Plaintiff’s total revenue amount 416,008,000; and (e) calculated the amount of income tax to be paid to the Plaintiff by 305 percent (including the amount of global income tax to be assessed to KRW 2865).75 percent (3).

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition under Seoul High Court Seoul High Court 97Gu4199 on January 29, 1997, but was dismissed on January 22, 1998, on the following grounds: (a) one of the apartment units (i) is transferred in return for the provision of land to C, and (d) the sales price for three of six multi-households is the husband of G, who is the landowner, and is the partner of H; and (b) the instant disposition that included each of the above payments in the Plaintiff’s income is unlawful.

Accordingly, the plaintiff is the Supreme Court on January 31, 1998.