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

A. On June 17, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired a multi-family house with the wife population of 000,000,0000,000,0000,000 won and its ground (hereinafter referred to as the “instant house”) and carried out DNA remodeling construction work on the said house, and on March 5, 2009, transferred the said house to the managementB, and calculated 000 won for remodeling construction expenses, and paid 000 won for capital gains tax for the transfer of the instant house to the Defendant on May 27, 2008. (b) On July 7, 2011, the Plaintiff reported and paid 200 won for transfer income tax for 209,000 won for the first time to the Plaintiff, and the Tax Tribunal notified the Plaintiff of the instant decision to the effect that it should belong to the necessary expenses, excluding the above 00 won for processing expenses. (c) The Plaintiff should be subject to the instant tax Tribunal’s appeal 2009.

(d) On June 1, 2012, the Defendant corrected the capital gains tax for the year 2009 to 000 won (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) in accordance with the purport of the decision of the said Tax Tribunal.” [The grounds for recognition], [The facts having no dispute, and the entries in Gap and Eul evidence Nos. 9 and 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) After the purchase of the instant housing, the Plaintiff carried out the second remodeling construction work (hereinafter referred to as the “construction work in this case”), such as installation of underground rainwater storage tanks and mother pumps, installation of the first floor bed and 1st and second floor rainwater cells, and installation of windows and outer walls in the rooftop warehouse entrance, and total waterproof control (hereinafter referred to as the “construction work in this case”), and construction cost in this case (hereinafter referred to as the “construction work”) has been 00 won between January 2009 and February 2009 to ECE who operates the “WO” company with 00 won, and 00 won and 3.00 won, and 00 won, and 00 won, hereinafter referred to as the “DD company’s construction cost in this case to HOG operating 'the fourth company' with 'the fourth company' with 'the fourth company' with 'the fourth company' with 'the fourth company' with 'the fourth company.

2) Therefore, the Defendant should recognize the instant construction cost as necessary expenses in addition to the remodeling construction cost of KRW 000 as deemed necessary expenses at the time of the instant disposition.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) The plaintiff, as well as 0.0 won for the above 0.0 billion won for the construction cost of 0.0 billion won, 00 won for the above 20. The plaintiff, as well as 0.0 won for the above 10.0 billion won for the construction cost of 8.0 billion won for the above 20. The plaintiff, as well as 00 won for the above 10.0 billion won for the construction cost of 20 billion won for each of the above 10.0 billion won for the construction cost of 10.0 billion won for each of the above 20.3 billion won for the 10.0 billion won for the construction cost of this case, and 0 billion won for each of the above 10.0 billion won for the 10.0 billion won for the construction cost of this case, and the other 0.6 billion won for each of the 10.0 billion won for the construction cost of this case, are provided for each of the above 10.0 billion won for the construction cost of this case.

(2) Part 000 won for DD construction costs to EE ("D")

As shown in the plaintiff's assertion, the following circumstances, i.e., construction confirmation (Evidence A 5-1) of April 29, 201, and the tax invoice of February 25, 2009 (Evidence A 5-2) (Evidence A-5-3), are hard to accept, and the tax invoice of May 10, 2008 (Evidence A-5-3), while it is difficult for the plaintiff to submit these statements to the 20th of May 10 to the 20th of the same month, and the 5th of the same month to receive additional repair work cost, and Eul evidence 6-1, and 200 to the 20th of the same month to the 20th of the same month, and the 20th of the above documents to the effect that the 20th of the above documents were not submitted, and the 20th of the above documents to the effect that the 20th of the above documents were not submitted.

(3) The portion of DD construction cost of 000 won in ChoG (FG)

In light of the plaintiff's arguments, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 12, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 were recorded in the above 0G construction cost, and Eul evidence Nos. 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 2 were recorded in the 0G construction cost for each of the above 0G construction cost, and the other 4G construction cost was not recorded in the 0G construction cost confirmation Nos. 1 to 280, and the other 00G construction cost confirmations were not stated in the 0G construction cost confirmation No. 20, and the other 0G construction cost confirmations were not stated in the 2G construction cost confirmation No. 1 to 3G construction cost for each of the above 4G construction cost. The plaintiff had not been stated in the 0G construction cost confirmations.

(4) Part D Construction Costs of 000 won for DD construction costs to this Section (HHta Daily)

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff asserts that this part of the construction cost was paid in cash to this Section; (b) the copy of the passbook indicating the cash withdrawal at the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion was not submitted with any financial data supporting the partial construction cost; and (c) the entries in subparagraphs 7-1 and 7-2, and 3 alone are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff alleged this part of the construction cost; and (d) there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently; and (e) the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.