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

The cancellation shall be revoked.

A. ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, 293 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) stated that the instant land investigation and supplementary injury during the Japanese occupation period was under the circumstances, and the instant land was inherited by Nonparty B, who died on March 27, 1949. AB died on June 23, 1990, and the saidB was inherited by one of co-inheritors, and thisCC was inherited by one of the co-inheritors, and thisCC died on December 20, 200 and 8 other co-inheritors jointly succeeded to the instant land.

B. The registration of ownership preservation was completed under the name of the State on April 14, 1995. On or around April 1979, the plaintiff filed a claim against the State and ○○ District Court 2006 Gao○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc. to purchase the land of this case, and the plaintiff was dismissed the claim against the State on May 3, 2007 against the State and 006 Doo○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc. on the ground that eight persons, including Doo, etc., were to perform the procedure of registration of ownership transfer for each of the land of this case on April 14, 1979, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time. On the other hand, Doo was ordered to cancel the registration of ownership preservation under the name of ○○ District Court 2007 ○○○○○○○○○○○ on the ground of the above cancellation of registration of ownership.

C. On January 17, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the instant land to Fixed XX; and (b) filed a report on the transfer income tax that applied reduction or exemption by one’s own around eight years after calculating the transfer value to 00 ○○○, acquisition value [the conversion price (the conversion date: January 1, 1985), transfer margin ○○○, and calculated tax amount to ○○○○○; and (c) on March 17, 2011.

D. On December 1, 2011, the Defendant deemed that it did not constitute reduction and exemption by one year’s own border, and excluded the reduction and exemption, and notified the Plaintiff on December 1, 201 as the transfer income tax of ○○○○ (transfer value of ○○○, acquisition value (Conversion value), and transfer margin ○○○○○○) for the Plaintiff.

E. On April 29, 2013, the Plaintiff corrected the time of acquisition of the instant land from November 3, 2008, which was the date of receipt of the registration of transfer of ownership to the instant land, on the grounds that it constitutes a case where the date of settling the balance is unclear, and filed an application for rectification with the transfer value ○○○○○, the acquisition price (the date of acquisition: November 3, 2008, the date of receipt of the registration) and the transfer margin - the transfer margin - the transfer margin - the request for rectification was made on May 22, 2013. Accordingly, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the said request for correction on May 22, 2013.

Facts without any dispute arising in recognition, Gap's 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, Eul's 1, 2, and 4 (including number 2); the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

It is true that a sales contract was made between the Plaintiff and BB on April 1979. However, even according to a judgment, since data on objective liquidation, such as sales contract, sales price, receipt, etc., is not verified, and the actual liquidation date is not confirmed or unclear, the time of acquisition of the land in this case should be deemed the date of receipt of ownership transfer registration. Accordingly, the disposition of the Defendant in this case on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination

According to Article 98 of the Income Tax Act, when calculating gains from transfer of an asset, the date of acquisition and transfer shall be the date of liquidation of the price of the asset except in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where the date of liquidation is unclear. Article 162(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the date of liquidation of the price shall be the date of registration, receipt of registration, or transfer of the date of transfer recorded in the register, register, list, etc. In addition, Article 8 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5031, Dec. 22, 1995) provides that the assets acquired before December 31, 1984 shall be deemed to have been acquired on January 1, 1985.

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from BB around April 1979, which may be recognized or inferred by comprehensively taking account of the facts of recognition as seen earlier and the entire purport of arguments, namely, the Plaintiff asserted that eight persons, such as DD, purchased the instant land from DD et al. on or before the date of April 1979. The Plaintiff was sentenced to the Plaintiff to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership for sale on or before the date of April 17, 201. On January 17, 2011, the Plaintiff stated the acquisition date of the instant land as the date of acquisition on January 1, 1985, and filed a report with the Plaintiff for the acquisition of the instant land for eight or more years from the date of acquisition, and that it was not easy for the Plaintiff to investigate the tax authority favorable to taxpayers to determine the tax rate of taxation, and thus, the Plaintiff’s acquisition date of the instant land should be deemed justifiable in light of the circumstances that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land as the actual party concerned.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.