2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

A. On August 14, 2003, the Plaintiff and HongA jointly owned the entire commercial building on the first floor of the main apartment complex located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 000-17 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”). On March 10, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred the instant commercial building to 000 won, and reported the transfer value to 00 won (00 won x 1/2), and 000 won (converted value).

B. However, on November 2, 2010, the Defendant re-calculated the transfer margin by taking the acquisition value of the Plaintiff’s share in the instant commercial building as KRW 000 (the purchase price) and then notified the Plaintiff of the correction decision of KRW 000 of the transfer income tax for the year 2005 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 10 through 12, Eul evidence l through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Claim for acquisition value

The Plaintiff, in collaboration with the HongA, acquired the instant commercial building from ParkB, had to pay all the successful bid price, acquisition tax, and registration tax to be paid by ParkB while acquiring the instant commercial building from ParkB, and spent 00 won for this purpose, at least 1/2 of the Plaintiff’s share acquisition price shall be deemed as the acquisition price of the Plaintiff’s share.

(2) The assertion of necessary expenses

In order to engage in restaurant in the instant commercial building, the Plaintiff spent approximately KRW 000, KRW 000, and KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000 for the purchase of restaurant equipment and fixtures, and ② The Plaintiff paid acquisition tax, registration tax, etc., so the amount equivalent to 1/2,00

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On December 2, 2002, the instant commercial building obtained a successful bid approval from ParkB, and the Plaintiff and HongA jointly agreed to jointly bear the bid price (including interest), acquisition tax, and registration tax to be borne by ParkB while acquiring the instant commercial building from ParkB on August 14, 2003.

(2) After that, the registration of ownership transfer was completed as of August 14, 2003 with respect to the instant commercial building due to voluntary auction in the name of ParkB, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff and RedA (1/2 of the Plaintiff’s share) on the same day.

(3) The Plaintiff and HongA paid 000 won in lieu of the successful bid price to be paid by ParkB. The Plaintiff and HongA paid 000 won in total as acquisition tax, etc. (300 won in acquisition tax + 000 won in agricultural special tax + 000 won in registration tax + 000 won in education tax) when completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of ParkB.

(4) The Plaintiff later paid KRW 000 as acquisition tax, etc. on the Plaintiff’s share while completing the registration of transfer of ownership.

[Reasons for Recognition] The above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 13, 22 through 24, Eul evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) As to the assertion of acquisition value

According to the above facts, the plaintiff and HongA disbursed 000 won ( = 000 won + 000 won) with the successful bid price of the real estate of this case, acquisition tax, registration tax, etc. under the name of ParkB, it is reasonable to deem that the actual acquisition price of the plaintiff's share in the commercial building of this case is KRW 1/2.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is without merit.

(2) As to the assertion of necessary expenses

First of all, it is not sufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone paid a sum of 1/2 of the total cost of KRW 000 and KRW 1/2 of the total cost of KRW 000 with the cost of purchasing equipment such as the restaurant opening costs, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Next, according to the above recognition of the acquisition tax, etc., the plaintiff paid 000 won to the plaintiff's share among the commercial buildings of this case as acquisition tax, etc., the above amount should be deducted as necessary expenses.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is without merit.

(d) Justifiable tax amount.

Justifiable tax amount, such as the attached tax calculation sheet, is KRW 000.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the part exceeding KRW 000 among the disposition of this case is unlawful, and the remainder is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.