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

The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 717,441,470, which was vested in the Plaintiff on June 1, 2012 by the former Cheong-gu Defendant on June 1, 2012, shall be revoked.

A. On July 1, 1997, the Plaintiff purchased the land indicated in [Attachment 1] No. 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as 'the land No. 1'), and purchased the land listed in Annex 5 (hereinafter referred to as 'the land No. 2') from BaB on the same day, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the land July 1, 1997. (B) On November 24, 2009, the Plaintiff calculated the registration of ownership transfer for the land No. 1 and 2 in the future. On November 24, 2009, the Plaintiff calculated the registration of ownership transfer for the land No. 1 and 2 on the ground of expropriation for the land No. 1 and 2, on January 31, 2010, and appropriated the acquisition value of the land No. 1 and 2 as the transfer income tax for the land No. 40, 2005, 307, 405, 2015, 2017.

D. The Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review against the Defendant on January 11, 2012. The Defendant: (a) took a field investigation around February 14, 2012 from around February 22, 2012 to around February 22, 2012; (b) obtained the statement that the sale price is KRW 238,00,000 from the seller of land 1 to 238,000; (c) obtained the actual transaction price as to the land 2; and (d) obtained the real transaction price as KRW 71,851,00 in total with the actual transaction price acquired as the transaction price for the land 71,851,000 (=30,000 + KRW 238,000 in the real transaction price for the land 231,000 + KRW 71,851,000 in the real transaction price for the land ; and (d) disposed of the transfer income tax for the Plaintiff 2008.

E. On August 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Director of the Regional Tax Office of △△△, but was dismissed on September 11, 2012, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 23, 2012, but was dismissed on October 15, 2013.

[Ground for recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, Eul evidence Nos. 1-5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① In relation to the land 1, the Defendant, even though there is no contract or any objective documentary evidence, is dependent only on the unilateral statement of the transferor, such as the DamageA, etc., thereby recognizing the actual transaction value of the land 1 and calculated capital gains tax by deeming it an acquisition value as an acquisition value. ② Furthermore, as long as there is a defect in the method of calculating the acquisition value of the land 1 in relation to the land 2,

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Facts of recognition

1) Sales amount stated in the approval seal contract of land Nos. 1 and 2 is KRW 32,350,000 for land No. 1 and KRW 41,486,00 for land No. 2 and KRW 9,136,00 for land.

2) The Defendant conducted an on-site investigation around November 28, 201 to December 9, 2011 prior to the notice of prior notice of taxation issued by December 23, 2011. During the investigation process, the DamageA, the transferor of the first land, stated the purchase price of the first land at KRW 32,250,000 as stated in the approval seal agreement, and reversed the subsequent KRW 200,000.

3) The document confirming February 21, 2012 and the written answer of March 2, 2012, which was prepared by the DamageA in the pre-assessment review, were as follows, and the DamageA testified to the same effect in this court thereafter. The Plaintiff and Ulsan-gu Office for Licensed Real Estate Agent located in Ulsan-dong, and is not currently kept. Under the transaction practices of neighboring real estate at the time, approximately KRW 238 million was calculated as sales price (hereinafter referred to as KRW 1,00,000) calculated as KRW 138 million per square day according to the transaction practices of neighboring real estate. At the time of the tax investigation in 2011, the purchase price was divided into two times, and the remainder of the purchase price was 10,000 won in total, and the remainder was 00,000 won in cash, and each purchase price was 00,000 won in total,00 won in total, and 300,000 won in cash.

4) The main contents of the confirmations drawn up in the pre-assessment review by the grandchildren residing in the vicinity of land Nos. 1 and 2 for a long time are as follows:

"The first and second neighboring real estate transactions and market prices, etc. are well known, and around 197, the sales contract for the first and second lands was concluded, about KRW 5,000 per square year in the case of forest land and about KRW 10,00 in the case of the vicinity of national highways, and about KRW 13,00 per square year in the case of the national highways. At the time, the State A had been aware that the State A sold the first land to KRW 13,00 per square year, and there was a memory that the community residents and the market prices were sold at a higher price than the market prices."

5) The former owner of the second land in a certified copy of the register is the DamageCC (the person who actually sold the second land to the DamageB or the Plaintiff) and the actual acquisition price of the second land cannot be known as the actual acquisition price of the second land following the death of the DamageCC around June 2003.

6) As of January 1, 1997, the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 1997, is 495 won/m2, 490 won/m2, 485 won/m2, 2,580 won/m2, and 490 won/m2 in the order of entry in the attached list number in the attached list. 7) The confirmation document prepared by the representative of the office of Dogdong Licensed Real Estate Agents in the pre-assessment review, stating that “the contract for the sale and purchase of land 1 and 2 was all discarded after the lapse of the preservation period. Although the purchase price of the land 1 and 2 is not well memory, it was traded in the amount of KRW 50,00 per square meter in light of the market price at the time, and that Do has died around January 25, 2014.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, the testimony of Satisfya, Gap evidence No. 5, Eul evidence No. 6-13, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 97(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9785 of Jul. 31, 2009) provides that the acquisition value of assets under each subparagraph of Article 94(1) of the same Act shall be based on the actual transaction value required for the acquisition of assets in principle. In a case where the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition cannot be confirmed, it shall be based on the transaction example, appraisal value, or conversion value prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Under Articles 163(12) and 176-2(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21934 of Dec. 31, 2009), “the conversion value at the time of acquisition” means the actual transaction value at the time of transfer, transaction example, or appraisal value at the time of acquisition, or the value calculated by dividing the actual transaction value by the standard market price at the time of acquisition of land at the time of acquisition at the time of acquisition at the time of acquisition at the time of 200.

A) In the course of the Defendant’s tax investigation, the DamageA, a seller of the land 1, stated the purchase price of the land 1 as KRW 32,250,00,00, which is the amount entered in the approval agreement, and subsequently stated the amount of KRW 238,000,000, which was finally stated in the approval agreement, as the amount verified as a fact-finding because the purchase price was either the amount under the verification agreement or the amount is not certain at a certain level. In light of the background behind the reversal of the sale price amount, it cannot be readily concluded that the amount of the purchase price which the DamageA stated in itself is false.

B) The Defendant’s written answer, confirmation, and testimony at this court to the effect that the amount of KRW 13,000 from the total amount calculated by multiplying the purchase price of the land of KRW 13,00 per square year by the total amount of KRW 18,370 per square year (18,370) was reduced to KRW 238,00,000, and that the land of KRW 1 was sold to his/her children for the purpose of establishing the deposit money for the lease on a deposit basis for his/her children, and that if the amount of the deposit and other use provided to his/her children is charged, the amount shall be charged from the date of transfer.

In light of the developments leading up to determining the amount of purchase price at the time when a significant period of time elapsed, and the fact that the lossA does not seem to have any impact on the lossA according to the excess of the purchase price at the time of investigation, its statement

C) The contents written in the certificate of hand-hosity living for a long time in the vicinity of the land 1 and 2 are also consistent.

D) In light of the standard of January 1, 1997 for land Nos. 1 and 2 and the officially assessed individual land price of neighboring land submitted by the Defendant, it is relatively consistent with the market price at the time.

E) The real acquisition value of assets, which serves as the basis for calculating the amount of capital gains tax, refers to the value acquired by the acquisitor at the time of the transaction and paid as the price, which is objectively recognized by the sales contract and other documentary evidence. In this case, the “sale contract and other documentary evidence” cannot be deemed as limited to documentary evidence, such as sales contract

F) In addition, even though it appears that the first and second lands were occupied by ○○ City through ○○ Metropolitan City and the first and second lands were selected as an area subject to ○○ General Industrial Complex, and that there was a factor to increase the price of the first and second lands. However, in light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the confirmation form of DoD name, consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, is not written on the date of its preparation, and is not written on the date of its preparation, and it is difficult to believe it in light of the above circumstances.

G) Although the Plaintiff asserted that the total sum of KRW 2.6 billion was paid with the purchase price of the land No. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff did not submit any objective financial data.

3) Next, according to the above facts, the actual seller of the second land is the DamageCC, the actual seller of the second land, and the actual seller of the second land dies on or around June 2003, the actual transaction price of the second land is unknown as the damageCC died on or around June 2003. The second land is a land adjacent to the first land and appropriate because it is deemed as the actual transaction price as the actual transaction price of the first land, and as seen earlier, it is reasonable to calculate the acquisition price of the second land calculated on such premise as KRW 71,851,00 as the actual transaction price of the first land is 238,00,000.

4) Therefore, the disposition of this case where the Defendant adjusted the increase in capital gains tax to the Plaintiff by deeming the actual transaction price of the Plaintiff’s 1 and 2 land as KRW 309,851,000 is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.