1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On December 23, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired 149 square meters in bulk, 332 square meters in Nam-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, 2005, 331 square meters in lots, 345 square meters in lots, and 153 square meters in bulk, and each of the above lands was merged into 1,041 square meters in Nam-gu, Busan Metropolitan City on January 30, 2012.

(B) On June 25, 2012, the Plaintiff sold 11/100 of the shares in the instant land No. 1 to the forest comprehensive construction company (hereinafter “forest comprehensive construction”), but again acquired the said shares from the forest comprehensive construction on August 11, 2014.

On the other hand, on March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired a large of 68 square meters in Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”).

On August 30, 2014, the Plaintiff sold the instant land Nos. 1 and 2 to the Party Co., Ltd., and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land Nos. 1 and 2 on December 1, 2014.

On February 28, 2015, the Plaintiff reported the transfer value of KRW 3,180,00,000, acquisition value of KRW 1,421,79,290, and necessary expenses as KRW 1,268,510,00, and KRW 120,002,610, which reverts to the year 2014.

On August 24, 2015, the Defendant did not recognize KRW 148,439,200 among the acquisition value of the instant land Nos. 1 and 2 and KRW 1,212,010 among necessary expenses, and notified the Plaintiff of the rectification of KRW 72,462,870 for the transfer income tax reverted to the year 2014.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal on January 27, 2016 after filing an objection on November 23, 2015, but was dismissed on April 20, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 56, 57 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the overall purport of the argument in this case, whether the disposition in this case is legitimate or not, the plaintiff's purchase of each of the land in this case for construction business, and can be seen as a construction business activity after that.