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

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition of the judgment of the first instance as follows, and the addition of the judgment of the second instance as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ On the second page of the judgment of the first instance court, the second page "497-9" shall be read as "497-8".

○ In the second page of the judgment of the first instance court, “1,802 square meters” shall be deemed as “1,820 square meters”.

○ From 3th of the first instance court's decision, the first instance court's 12th to 13th of the "this case" is as follows.

Jincing

The date of transferring the instant land is December 22, 2014, which is the starting date of expropriation.

○ Part 3 14 of the first instance court's decision "as follows:

[Plaintiff filed a revised return under Article 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes on January 22, 2015, which is within the statutory due date of return under Article 105(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12852, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same). As such, the Plaintiff filed a revised return on increased compensation pursuant to Article 45 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and made an additional payment under Article 46 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, thereby imposing no additional tax pursuant to Article 48(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes]

2. Additional determination

A. Determination on whether Article 162(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is unconstitutional

The Plaintiff asserts that Article 162(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26067, Feb. 3, 2015) stipulating the date of the settlement of the price, the date of the commencement of the expropriation, or the date of the receipt of the registration of transfer of ownership, whichever comes earlier, is contrary to the principle of no taxation without the law of the Constitution.

Article 98 of the former Income Tax Act provides that "the time of acquisition and time of transfer of assets shall be the date of liquidation except in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as cases where the date of liquidation is unclear," and Article 162 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "the time of acquisition and time of transfer of assets in each subparagraph shall not be deemed the date of liquidation of the price, while it refers to any of the following cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as cases where the date of liquidation is unclear, etc." The above provision provides that the time of acquisition and time of transfer of assets in each subparagraph shall not be deemed the date of liquidation of the price. Each of the above provisions provides that the time of acquisition and time of transfer of assets, which are various standards within the system of the income tax law, shall be uniformly grasped and interpreted and applied in order to interpret and apply the relevant provisions without inconsistency, it cannot be deemed that the principle of no taxation without law and the limit of delegated legislation under the Constitution is contrary to the Plaintiff's grounds for appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du68231, Apr. 12, 2001).

B. Determination on the assertion of tax reduction due to necessary expenses deduction and public expropriation

1) The assertion

In calculating the tax base, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that: (a) the sum of the acquisition cost of KRW 5,342,200, including acquisition tax, acquisition tax, registration tax, and registration fee, and transfer cost of KRW 4,49,600 in total; (b) the land in this case was transferred by expropriation; (c) 30% of the total compensation of the land in this case; and (d) 2,141,650, the amount of compensation in cash, equivalent to 15% of the total compensation of KRW 267,528,30, and KRW 2,141,650, among the disposition in this case, the aforementioned expenses shall not be deducted; and (e) the portion for which the tax amount has not been reduced or exempted is unlawful.

As to this, the defendant reflected the disposition of this case by reducing or exempting the tax amount due to public expropriation based on compensation prior to the increase, and if the acquisition price of the land of this case is corrected to KRW 115,400,000, the actual acquisition price, the actual acquisition price of which is 115,400,000, the defendant asserts that even if the plaintiff reflected the amount claimed for reduction, the disposition of this case shall not be revoked within the scope of the

(ii) the facts of recognition

In full view of the purport of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 20 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, the defendant issued the instant disposition, which is a disposition imposing capital gains tax on compensation for expropriation prior to increase, and determined capital gains tax by deducting the acquisition value of the instant land as KRW 75,00 per 75,000 (75,000 x 2,308 square meters) based on the publicly announced individual land price in May 31, 2008, and at the time of calculating gains from transfer, the tax amount of KRW 5,193,00 equivalent to 3% shall be calculated by deducting the tax amount of KRW 237,954,00,000, which is the compensation prior to increase, from the tax amount of KRW 800,437, which is the tax amount to be paid prior to increase, KRW 405,250, KRW 200, KRW 305,000, KRW 205, the acquisition value of each of the instant land at the time when the Plaintiff acquired the instant land.

3) As to the Plaintiff’s assertion

A) Examining the amount of gift tax paid, in principle, does not constitute necessary expenses. However, Article 97-2(1) of the former Income Tax Act provides that where a resident transfers land, buildings, or other assets prescribed by Presidential Decree donated by his/her spouse or lineal ascendants or descendants within five years from the date of donation of such land or buildings or other assets prescribed by Presidential Decree, the acquisition value, among necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value, shall be the acquisition value at the time of the acquisition of such spouse, lineal ascendants or descendants. In such cases, where there is an amount equivalent to the gift tax paid or to be paid by the resident on the donated assets, such amount of gift tax paid or to be paid by the resident, shall be included in necessary expenses. In such exceptional cases, the amount of gift tax paid may be included in necessary expenses. However, such exceptional cases do not fall

B) Examining necessary expenses of KRW 5,342,200 in total, including acquisition tax, registration tax, and registration fee, Article 163(1)1 and Article 89(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that acquisition tax, registration tax, and other incidental expenses shall be added to “actual transaction price incurred for acquisition” in the main sentence of Article 97(1)1(a) of the former Income Tax Act, so each of the above expenses constitutes necessary expenses required for acquiring the instant land. However, since the Defendant deducted from gains on transfer only KRW 5,193,00,000 as necessary expenses actually paid by the Plaintiff, the necessary expenses of KRW 149,200, which are the difference between the actual necessary expenses and the said KRW 5,193,000, should

C) Examining litigation costs, etc. relating to the increase in compensation, this cannot be deemed as expenses incurred in transferring assets, and thus does not constitute transfer expenses (Article 163(3)2-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 26067, Feb. 3, 2015; however, Article 163(3)2-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act added litigation costs, etc. relating to the increase in compensation to capital expenses, etc., but the said provision is applied from the first transfer after the date of the amendment (Article 2(2) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which does not apply to the disposition

D) Examining the tax reduction or exemption due to public expropriation, the Defendant increased the tax exemption while rendering the instant disposition.

The fact that tax reduction or exemption was made due to public expropriation based on KRW 237,954,00, which is the previous compensation, is as seen earlier. Since the instant disposition is a capital gains tax on the compensation prior to the increase, it is legitimate for the Defendant to reduce or exempt tax due to public expropriation based on the compensation prior to the increase. The Plaintiff’s assertion has no merit.

4) As to the defendant's argument

A) In a lawsuit seeking a revocation of a taxation, the determination of whether the tax assessment is unlawful should be made based on whether the amount of tax assessed by the taxation disposition exceeds a legitimate tax amount. Thus, even in cases where a taxation disposition is unlawful due to a mistake in the process of calculating and determining the tax base and tax amount, if the tax amount assessed by the taxation authority does not exceed the scope of legitimate calculation amount, and if the wrong method does not vary in the scope of the taxation unit and the reason for the disposition, it is not unlawful and should not be revoked (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du3823, Jun. 15, 2006). Article 163(9) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the amount of tax assessed by the inheritance or gift tax as of the date of commencing the inheritance or donation shall be deemed the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition under the provisions of Articles 60 through 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, Article 60(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that the inheritance tax and gift Tax Act shall be calculated based on the current market price of individual land.

B) Examining the aforementioned facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, when calculating the acquisition value of the land of this case as the actual transaction value, the individual land price in 2007 was applied to the acquisition value of the land of this case in January 23, 2008. As such, the transfer margin constituting the basis of the instant disposition should be calculated by applying the acquisition value to the individual land price in 2007. Accordingly, when calculating a legitimate tax amount, the transfer margin should be calculated by adding the acquisition value to 115,40,000 won (17,10,000 won - 115,40,000 won) to the amount calculated in the course of the instant disposition. Moreover, even if the acquisition value of the land of this case is deducted from the actual transaction value, it is evident that the legitimate tax amount exceeds 149,200 won to the Plaintiff as necessary expenses to be additionally deducted from the amount of transfer income tax imposed on the Plaintiff’s disposition and the scope of the reason for taxation.

5) Sub-committee

Therefore, even if the disposition of this case was partially exempted from necessary expenses, the disposition of this case within the scope of the legitimate tax amount is not revoked. The plaintiff's assertion is therefore without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.