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

A. On December 29, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired and owned Samsung C&S (hereinafter “the instant house”) in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Samsung-dong, Seoul, as a new sale, and transferred it to the Nonparty, etc. on June 9, 2008.

B. On August 8, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a return on the tax base of capital gains tax with the transfer value of KRW 920,00,000 less the acquisition value of KRW 259,570,000 and necessary expenses, etc. as to the transfer of the instant house at KRW 641,59,594,080, and the Plaintiff is one house for one household. The instant house is a newly-built house under Article 99-3(1)(hereinafter “the instant special case”) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the premise that the instant house is a newly-built house under Article 99-3(2) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter “the Enforcement Decree of the instant case”). The Plaintiff filed a voluntary return and paid capital gains tax of KRW 14,208,370 as transfer income tax for 208

C. After that, under the special provisions of this case on September 12, 2008, the Plaintiff shall deduct the transfer income amount accrued for five years after the acquisition date of the relevant newly-built house from the taxable amount. The provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case stipulate that the standard market price at the time of acquisition shall be deducted from the standard market price on the date five years have passed since the acquisition date with respect to the calculation method of the transfer income amount accrued for five years, thereby making a request for correction to refund the transfer income tax and resident tax, which were paid on the ground that the transfer income tax cannot be deducted from the base price at the time of acquisition from January 1, 2006, the base price at the time of the acquisition date of the instant house from January 1, 2006 to December 29, 2006, which was the date five years have elapsed since the acquisition date of the instant house, and the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction on November 6, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 (including virtual numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

First, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition is unlawful as a lawsuit brought without going through the entire trial procedure. However, according to the evidence No. 6, the Plaintiff’s request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal at the time of filing the instant lawsuit, and received the dismissal decision on February 26, 2009, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the mid-2006, the standard market price of the housing of this case sharply increased from 584,00,000 to 736,000,000 as of January 1, 2007 as of January 1, 2007, and in accordance with the enforcement Decree of this case, from January 1, 2006, the standard market price of the housing of this case was published in January 1, 2006 to December 29, 2006, the transfer income tax shall not be reduced or exempted. Thus, the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case are null and void against the principle of substantial taxation, and the disposition of this case based on this is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

(c) Markets:

As to whether the provision of this case is invalid in light of the principle of substantial taxation, ① The special provision of this case is a preferential provision providing for the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax from the transfer of newly-built house acquired within a certain period to encourage housing construction and support the real estate competition. In the legislation of preferential provision, it seems that a broad legislative discretion has been given to legislators according to the legislative purpose, policy, and technical judgment. ② In the special provision of this case, where a certain newly-built house is transferred five years after its acquisition date, the capital gains accrued for five years from the acquisition date of the relevant house shall be deducted from the income subject to the income subject to the transfer income tax. Article 40(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the calculation of capital gains accrued for five years from the acquisition date of the newly-built house and other necessary matters shall not be deemed to be the standard market price for the year immediately preceding the acquisition date of the house, and the standard market price of this case shall not be deemed to be the standard market price for five years from the acquisition date of the house.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition based on the enforcement decree of this case is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the enforcement decree of this case is null and void is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's request is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judge Choi-ho