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

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on October 23, 2007 and engaged in real estate sales business, etc.

B. As between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a sale contract that transfers 81,388 square meters out of the total transfer proceeds (hereinafter “the instant sale contract”) of 6,087,885,300 square meters among the 5,124 square meters and 00-0 square meters in the area of land transaction permission under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and the total transfer proceeds (hereinafter “the instant sale contract”) and failed to receive 2,949,820,000 won in the business year of business year of 2008, 2009, 308, 2008, 2008, 2000 square meters in the area of land ownership of the Plaintiff, each of which was located in the area of land transaction permission. < Amended by Act No. 5000, Mar. 13, 2008; Act No. 6380, Feb. 209, 2008>

C. As a result of the Plaintiff’s investigation into corporate tax for the business year from September 10 to 29 of the same month, the Defendant deemed the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 6,087,885,30, which was appropriated in advance, as sales of real estate, and deemed the time of attribution as the date of the transfer of real estate pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, to be the business year of 2008, which includes the date of the settlement of the above amount pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and deemed the period of attribution as 6,087,885,87,880,30, and the total amount of the sales omitted amount of KRW 6,156,95,95,985, while adding the total amount of KRW 3,820,058,709, Oct. 10, 2010 to be the amount of corporate tax reverted to the Plaintiff for the business year of 2009,507.

D. After that, on February 1, 2011, the head of the Dong-si in Chungcheongnam-si: (a) rendered a disposition of no land transaction on the ground that the residential requirements are satisfied with respect to each of the above parts of the land (3,35,035,300 square meters (3,300 square meters) among the 4,463 square meters of the 00-0 forest 5,124 square meters of the 00-0 forest 7,000 square meters (the price of KRW 953,00,000) and the Gu-si 81,38 square meters of the 000-0 forest 81,000 square meters (the price of KRW 3,35,035,300). Accordingly, the instant sales contract was revoked between the Plaintiff and the transferee with respect to each of the above parts of the land (hereinafter “the remaining land”).

E. Accordingly, the Defendant deducted the purchase price of each of the above lands from the gross income for each of the pertinent business years, and re-issued and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 69,79,230 of corporate tax for the business year 2008 ( = 920,295,750 - 850,496,520), and corporate tax for the business year 10,980,070 for the business year 2009 (=162,795,160 - 15,160 - 151,815,090 for the business year - 2009 (hereinafter “the remaining part of the initial disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on June 3, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, Gap 3-1, 2, Gap 4-1, 2, and 3-1, 2, and 3, Eul 1-5 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant sales contract for the land within a zone subject to land transaction permission under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act is without a land transaction permission, and its validity cannot be deemed as conclusive, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the income accrued from the transfer of the instant land was generated. Moreover, the Plaintiff set up a collateral security right for the instant land as a means to secure the return of the purchase price received in the event that a disposition of no land transaction permission is made in the future. Accordingly, the time when the gains accrued from the transfer of the instant land should be deemed to have been the time when the transferee completed the registration of transfer of ownership after obtaining a land transaction permission for the instant sales contract, and thus,

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Article 40 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the business year of accrual of earnings and losses of a domestic corporation for each business year shall be the business year which includes the date on which the concerned earnings and losses are determined (paragraph (1)), and that matters necessary for the scope of the business year of accrual of earnings and losses shall be determined by the Presidential Decree (paragraph (2)). According to Article 68(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act delegated, the business year of accrual of earnings and losses from the sale of products or other products (hereinafter “products”) shall be the business year which includes the date on which the commodities are delivered (paragraph (1) and the date on which the commodities are delivered (paragraph (3).

According to the above provisions, the business year of accrual of earnings and losses from the transfer of real estate shall be the business year in which the price is settled, and as long as the plaintiff received all the purchase price from the transfer of land in this case in the business year 2008 and 2009, it is reasonable to view that the business year of accrual of earnings from the transfer of land in this case shall be the business year in which the price is settled.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the transfer of taxable income by the transfer of the instant land could not be deemed as valid since the instant sales contract was not yet permitted, and that the Plaintiff could not be deemed as having any obligation to return the sales price received from the transferee if the subsequent disposition of no land transaction was taken. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the transfer of taxable income by the transfer of the instant land could not be deemed as having been generated, on the ground that (i) whether certain income is taxable income can be deemed as realizing the economic aspect, and thus, it is sufficient to determine that there was a tax base for the transfer of the instant land, and that the legal assessment of the underlying relationship, which would have been obtained by the transfer of the said income, should be lawful and effective, even if it is deemed that the transfer of the instant land was an illegal or invalid legal act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the transfer of the ownership of the instant land would not be deemed as having been cancelled by the Supreme Court Decision 200Du32589 Decided August 28, 197.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.