A. On June 27, 1985, the Plaintiff acquired and owned B, B, 615.5 square meters and C, 436.3 square meters and 436.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), and transferred the transfer value to four persons, including D, E, F, and G (hereinafter “Buyers”) on June 7, 2004, and reported the transfer value to 969,90,000 won.

B. On April 24, 2015, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s loan in the form of loan certificate was additionally received KRW 1,065,300,000 in addition to the above transfer value stated in the sales contract; and (b) calculated the total transfer value of the instant land at KRW 2,035,200,000; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the rectification of KRW 574,694,940 for the transfer income tax reverted to 2004

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On August 15, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on October 29, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap 3, 4, Eul 1, and 2 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is based solely on the buyer’s false assertion that he actually traded KRW 2,035,200,000 calculated as KRW 969,90,000 per square day, not KRW 3,050,000 on the sales contract of the land of this case, which is written on the sales contract of this case, and is based on the buyer’s assertion that he actually traded KRW 6,40,000 per square day.

It should be cancelled in violation of the principle of due diligence and the principle of applicable taxation.

(b) Attached Form 1. of the relevant statutes;

C. Fact 1) On April 13, 2004, the sales contract (A 1; hereinafter “instant contract”) dated April 13, 2004 concerning the instant land submitted by the Plaintiff upon filing a report of capital gains tax.

According to the above, the seller’s “Plaintiff” and the buyer’s “Plaintiff and three other persons” are indicated in the sale price column as “Gucheon-gu,000,000 won” and “unit price (unit price) three million won,” and the contract deposit KRW 00,000,000 (unit price) appears to be a clerical error in the cost of KRW 10

) At the time of the contract, the intermediate payment is deemed to be a clerical error in the context of the “satisfing cost”.

section 2.2.