2. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 201 shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The reasoning of this court's ruling is as follows: 1. 2. from 1. to 2. Sheet, 1. 1. The plaintiff's assertion, and 2. . . . ... ... . the relevant laws and regulations of the court of first instance are as stated in each corresponding part (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (Provided, That this part, "the main sentence of Article 97 (1) 1 (a) of the Act" in the main sentence of Article 97 (1) 1 (a) of the judgment of the court of first instance corresponding to the attached Form in accordance with the above "related Acts and subordinate statutes" seems to be erroneous.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. As to the assertion that the actual owner of the instant real estate is the largestB

(1) The plaintiff shall be exempted from 00 won for the above real estate, and 2. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 00 won for the first time to 2. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 0BC transfer registration for the above real estate, and 2. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 0BC transfer registration for the first time to 20, the first time to 20, the first time to 20, and 8, the second time to 0, the second time to 20, the second time to 20, the second time to 20, the second time to 20, the second time to 20, the second time to 20, the second time to 20, the second time to 20, the second time to 20, the second time to 20, the second time to 3, the second time to 3, and the third time to 3, the second time to 3, the second time to 3, the second time to 3, the second time to 0, the second time to 2, the third time to 200.

(2) However, under the name of 1 to 3, 12, and 13, and 2, the following circumstances, which could have been known to 30,000 won, and 1, i.e., the 2,000,000 won, were first 0,000 won and the 2,000,000 won were first 0,000 won were first 0,000 won were first 7,000 won were first 0,000 won were 30,000 won were 0,000 won were 7,000 won were 0,000 won were 0,000 won were 0,000 won were 0,000 won were 0,00 won were 7,00 won were 0,00 won were 0,000 won were 20,00 won were 7,00 won were 0,00 won were 3,000 won were 3,00 won were 3,00.

(3) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not acceptable without further review, on the premise that the Plaintiff was the actual owner of the instant real estate at the time of acquiring the instant real estate, or that the Plaintiff was the actual owner of the instant real estate.

B. As to the conjunctive assertion added by the plaintiff at the appellate court

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

In light of all the circumstances at the time of the formation of the conciliation of this case, the amount of debt in this case constitutes the acquisition value of the real estate in this case as consideration paid by the plaintiff to secure the ownership of the real estate in this case, and the disposition of this case based on other premise is unlawful, on the ground that the maximum CCC transferred the real estate in this case to the largestB, and the lowestB did not transfer it again to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the largestB, but did not obtain any consideration, and the plaintiff did not have any reason to exempt the debt equivalent to the amount of debt in this case.

(2) Determination

(A) In full view of the relevant provisions such as Article 97(1)1 (main sentence) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009) and Article 163(1)2 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010), which applies to the disposition of this case, the costs of lawsuit and settlement costs incurred in securing ownership, etc. in relation to the assets against which the lawsuit for acquisition was brought may be deducted as necessary expenses of the transferred assets unless they are counted as necessary expenses in calculating the income amount of the year in which the payment was made. If the seller purchased the real estate but fails to transfer its ownership, the expenses incurred in the process of filing a lawsuit for ownership transfer registration shall be deemed as the actual transaction price required for the acquisition of the real estate.

(B) However, the following circumstances revealed by the facts and evidence acknowledged earlier, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff agreed to acquire the instant real estate from the leastB by means of replacing the Plaintiff’s loan claims to the leastB, etc., and (ii) the Plaintiff appears to have brought a civil lawsuit against the leastCC and the leastB in order to secure ownership of the instant real estate in order for the Plaintiff to not implement the instant arrangement. (ii) In the instant adjustment, it would be reasonable to view that the Plaintiff exempted the Plaintiff from the financial obligation to secure the ownership of the instant real estate for the purpose of resolving the legal dispute on the instant real estate and securing the ownership of the instant real estate, and that it would be reasonable to view that the Plaintiff would not have agreed to pay the amount of the instant real estate to the maximum amount of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff for the purpose of securing the ownership of the instant real estate in consideration of the circumstances that the Plaintiff would not have agreed to pay the amount of the instant financial obligation to the maximum amount of the instant real estate 00 won and that the Plaintiff would have agreed to pay the amount of the instant real estate 000 won.

(3) Sub-determination

After all, the plaintiff's assertion that the amount of debt repayment of this case should be included in necessary expenses, which are the acquisition cost incurred in acquiring the real estate of this case, in return for the plaintiff's burden of acquiring the real estate of this case, is reasonable, and the disposition of this case based on the premise that the above 00 won is not necessary expenses, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this conclusion.

Since it is improper to accept the plaintiff's appeal and to cancel it, it is decided as per Disposition.