2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On February 10, 2010, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the capital gains tax for the Plaintiff on February 10, 2010 by OOOO, additional charges, and increased additional charges by OOOOO and additional tax OOOO.

"A. On March 27, 2003, the Plaintiff contributed to the non-party medical corporation BB medical foundation (hereinafter "B medical foundation") on January 26, 2006 (hereinafter "the contribution in this case") the amount of 160-10 square meters and 160-19 square meters and 936 square meters (hereinafter "each land in this case"), which was acquired at the purchase price amount of OOOOO on March 27, 2003, to the non-party medical corporation BB medical foundation (hereinafter "B medical foundation"). B. At the time of the contribution in this case, each land in this case was registered for the establishment of a mortgage of the non-party CCC Federation and the maximum amount of debt amount of OOOOO, but agreed to bear the amount of OOO of the secured debt amount of the mortgage in this case to the BB medical foundation.

C. The plaintiff did not make a return on the capital gains tax, but the defendant did not make a return on the tax base of 2O0, 2000, 2000,0000,0000 won for each of the above 2O0,000 won for each of the above 2O0,000 won for the transfer income tax of 2O0,000 won for each of the above 200,000 won for each of the above 2O0,000 won for each of the 20,000,000 won for each of the above 2O0,000 won for each of the above 20,000 won for each of the 6O,000,000 won for each of the above 20,000 won for each of the 6O,000,000 won for each of the above 20,000 won for each of the 2O,000,000 won for each of the above 1.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers for those with a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence 1 to 8

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the claim for revocation of the imposition of additional dues among the instant lawsuit

The Plaintiff seeks revocation of the imposition of additional dues and increased additional dues as well as increased additional dues ex officio. If the national tax is not paid by the due date, the amount to be collected in addition to the notified tax amount pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act is added to the amount of the additional dues and increased additional dues, and if the additional dues are not paid by the due date after the due date, the additional dues and increased additional dues have the nature of damages for delay in the whole or part of the tax liability, which are to be imposed by the law as a matter of course at the expiration of the due date without the due date for the payment without the due date for the additional dues determined by the law. If the payment demand is unreasonable or procedural defects exist, the Plaintiff can seek revocation of the additional dues and increased additional dues (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu10521, Oct. 8, 1993). In addition, the additional dues and increased additional dues are not imposed on the Plaintiff, as stated in the Plaintiff’s claim, and there is no new additional dues and increased additional dues that were imposed by 17.

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the imposition of additional dues and increased additional dues is unlawful as it is about the disposition without absence.

3. Determination as to whether the imposition of capital gains tax and additional tax is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The latter part of Article 88(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same) provides that capital gains tax shall be imposed on the onerous donation, but it does not purport that only the portion equivalent to the amount of the obligation to acquire by physically combining the donated property is transferred at a cost. However, Article 159 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter the same) provides that the transfer value and acquisition value shall be calculated by multiplying the value of the donated property by the ratio of the portion equivalent to the amount of the obligation to the value of the donated property to the value of the donated property. Accordingly, it would result in recognizing the acquisition value only for the amount not actually used for the acquisition at all times as the acquisition value. Ultimately, by calculating capital gains tax contrary to the purport of delegation by law, the scope of taxation without legal basis is expanded and thus becomes invalid.

(2) Even if the effect of Article 159 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is recognized, in the case of onerous donation, the actual transaction value cannot exist in terms of concept, so even if the actual transaction value is to be calculated based on the actual transaction value under the law, the amount of donation and the value of the relevant asset shall be calculated according to the standard market price. Since the part equivalent to the amount of the amount of the donation amount cannot exceed the amount of the donation amount logically, the transfer value of this case shall be the OO of the standard market price, and the acquisition value shall also be the OO of the standard market price at the time of acquisition, and the amount of the transfer income shall be the OO of the difference, as the OO of the acquisition value shall be the OO as the OO of the standard market price at the time of acquisition.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) First, the validity of Article 159 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be examined. Article 159 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the method of calculating the transfer value and the acquisition value of the assets deemed to be transferred among the donated assets shall be calculated by multiplying the value of the relevant assets under Articles 96 and 97 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act by the ratio of the amount equivalent to the amount of debts to the value of the donated assets. This provision provides for the method of calculating the transfer value and the acquisition value in line with the latter part of Article 88 (1) of the former Income Tax Act, which provides that the assets equivalent to the amount of debts shall be deemed to be transferred at a cost, and it shall not be deemed as violating the principle of no taxation without law, and it shall not be deemed null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20

(2) Next, "the value of donation" shall be deemed as follows: (a) "the value of donation for onerous donation under the latter part of Article 88 (1) of the former Income Tax Act" means the value of donated property under Articles 60 through 66 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") according to ordinary examples. Therefore, "the value of donation" shall be deemed as the principle of calculating the market value of donated property as of the date of donation (Article 60 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act); however, if it is difficult to calculate the market value, the value of real estate shall be determined as the officially assessed value by the method stipulated in Article 61 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act; in the case of real estate for which mortgage, the value of secured claim and the value assessed under Articles 60 and 61 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, whichever is larger, and there is no value of each case at least 2000O (O).

(3) It is difficult to believe that: (a) the value of each of the instant lands is to be calculated based on the actual transaction value as it is located in the designated area and thus, (b) the value of the instant assets, which would be the basis of calculation of the transfer value and acquisition value; (c) the actual transaction value of the instant assets at the time of the transfer of such assets is to be the actual transaction value corresponding to the total amount of the relevant donated assets at the time of donation; (d) the actual transaction value, which would have been calculated based on the standard market value of the instant assets at the time of the transfer of such assets; (e) the amount of additional tax calculated based on the standard market value of the instant assets at the time of the transfer of such assets; and (e) the amount of additional tax calculated based on the standard market value of the instant assets at the time of the transfer of such assets at the time of the transfer of such assets by the Defendant’s acquisition of such assets at the time of the transfer of such assets; and (e) the amount of additional tax calculated based on the standard market value of the relevant assets at the time of the transfer value.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim to revoke the surcharge and increased surcharge among the lawsuits in this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.