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

This court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance from '1.1. to '2.2. Disposition' from '2. A. The gist of the plaintiff's argument, and b. the plaintiff's argument about the plaintiff's argument. Thus, " September 1, 201" of 2.13 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be " September 5, 201", "4.11 of the 4.11 apartment of the 15th apartment of the 15th apartment of the 15th 15th 'GGB' as "GGCC,' respectively, and the 5th 'decision on the plaintiff's argument of 17th '2th 'the 5th 17th 'the 5th 2th 'the 5th 5th 'the 17th 'the 2th 2th 'the plaintiff's argument' shall be cited as follows 2.

2. Parts to be dried;

C. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

(1) Relevant statutes

(1) Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006)

Article 96 (Transfer Price)

(1) The transfer value of assets as prescribed in subparagraphs of Article 94 (1) shall be the actual transaction value between the transferor and transferee at the time of the enhancement of the relevant assets (hereinafter referred to as the “actual transaction value”).

Article 101 (Calculation of Estimated Income by Wrongful Acts)

(1) If any act or computation of a resident having an economic income, is deemed to have unreasonably reduced the tax burden on such income through transactions with the resident concerned, the chief of the district tax office or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment may calculate the income amount in the current year regardless of the act or calculation of

(1) Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890 of Feb. 28, 2007)

Article 67 (Calculation of Unfair Conducts of Angradical Income)

(4) In transactions with related parties under each subparagraph of Article 98 (1), if it is deemed that any tax burden has been unjustly reduced by acquiring land, etc. in excess of the market price or by boosting its price below the market price, such acquisition price or transfer price shall be calculated based on the market price

(5) In applying the provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4), the market price shall be the value appraised by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Articles 60 through 64 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, Articles 49 through 59 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 100-2 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. In such cases, "period within six months before or after the base date of appraisal (three months in cases of donated property)" in the main sentence of Article 49 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall be deemed "period within three months before or after the date of religion or acquisition", respectively, and "cases where inheritance or donation is received" in Article 100-

(1) Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20720, Feb. 29, 2008)

Article 49 (General Rules, etc. of Assessment)

(1) The term "those recognized as the market price under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as expropriation or public sale price and appraisal price" in Article 60 (2) of the Act means the price confirmed under any of the following subparagraphs in cases of sale, appraisal, expropriation, auction (referring to an auction under the Civil Execution Act; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) or public auction (hereafter referred to as "sale, etc." in this paragraph) during a period not exceeding six months (three months in the case of donated property; hereafter referred to as the "evaluation period" in this paragraph) before and after the evaluation base date: Provided, That even if there is sale, etc. during the evaluation period not falling under any of the evaluation period, the price of the relevant sale, etc. may be included in the price confirmed under the following subparagraphs in consideration of the management status of the issuing company during the period from the evaluation base date to the date falling under any of subparagraphs of paragraph (2):

1. The transaction value, if any, of the relevant property: Provided, That the transaction value is deemed objectively unfair, such as the transaction value with a person with a special relationship provided for in Article 26 (4), shall be excluded;

(2) In applying the provisions of paragraph (1), whether a value under any subparagraph of paragraph (1) falls within six months (three months for donated property) before or after the evaluation base date, shall be determined based on the date stipulated in the following subparagraphs, and where a value deemed the market price under the provisions of paragraph (1) is two or more, the value falling under the date which is the nearest day before or after the evaluation base date shall

1. The sales contract date for the case of paragraph (1) 1;

(5) In applying the provisions of paragraph (1), where there are values falling under any of the subparagraphs of the same paragraph for other assets whose location, use and items are identical or similar to the relevant assets, such values shall be deemed the market value under the provisions of Article 60 (2) of the Act.

(2) Determination

In calculating capital gains tax, the transfer value of assets shall be calculated based on the actual transaction value, but if the act or calculation of a resident is deemed to have reduced unreasonably the tax burden on the relevant income due to the transaction with the resident and the related party, such transfer value shall be calculated based on the actual transaction value notwithstanding the actual transaction value, and the method of calculating the market value shall be governed by the provisions of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Meanwhile, in order to apply the provisions of wrongful calculation pursuant to Article 101 of the Income Tax Act, it is sufficient to acknowledge that the transaction between the related parties cannot be deemed as a normal transaction to be taken by a reasonable economic person in light of social norms or transaction practices, and thus, it is sufficient to deem that the tax burden has been reduced unreasonably, and it does not necessarily require any tax avoidance or economic loss (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du750

In full view of the following circumstances that are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the evidence cited by the judgment of the first instance court as seen earlier and the evidence as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is deemed to have unjustly reduced tax burden by transferring the apartment house of this case to his father, who is a person with a special relationship, below the market price. As such, the instant disposition imposed by the Defendant by denying the actual transaction price of the Plaintiff and using the market price calculated lawfully in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as the market price calculated under the exchange contract of this case is lawful.

① Although the Plaintiff concluded the instant exchange contract with the transfer value of the instant apartment as an OOO, the Plaintiff did not conduct the market price appraisal, etc. on the instant apartment.

② At the time of entering into the instant exchange contract, the sale price of the same flat-type apartment in the same complex with the instant apartment complex appears to have been formed before and after the OOO members. In fact, the apartment purchased around December 2006, except the instant apartment, was traded at the price before and after OO members.

③ Around September 2006, the Plaintiff made a price negotiation for the conclusion of the instant exchange contract. At the time of the price negotiation, the transfer value of the instant apartment was an adequate market price, but around October 2006, the market price was rapidly increased. Although the instant exchange contract, which was a normal transaction at the time of the price negotiation, should not be deemed an unfair transaction due to ex post facto circumstances, the issue of whether the transfer of land, etc. is normal shall be determined at the time of the transaction where the price is determined (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu15821, Jan. 29, 199). Unless there are special circumstances, the date of the instant transaction shall be December 1, 2006, which is the date of preparation of the exchange contract, and the determination of whether the transaction constitutes unfair calculation should be made as of December 1, 2006, which is the date of transaction. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

④ In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that the market price of the apartment of this case was rapidly increased, but it is impossible to significantly increase the transfer price of this case in only 2 months due to the nature of the exchange contract with his father, which is the exchange contract with his father, and thus it should not be evaluated as an unfair transaction. However, this is merely that the exchange contract of this case was a wrongful act because it was not a special relation with the other party even though it was known that the transfer price of this case falls short of the market price at the time of transaction, and thus, it is nothing more than that the real estate seller can directly sell real estate with a third party without any burden unless the contract is paid the down payment. Considering that the exchange contract of this case was in accordance with the above argument, the real estate seller can enter into a contract for selling real estate with a third party without any burden, even if it was in accordance with the above argument by the Plaintiff, it cannot be viewed as a reasonable transaction to be done by a reasonable economic person in light of social norms

⑤ Meanwhile, the Defendant calculated the market price of the apartment of this case based on the OOO in the same complex that had been traded within three months before or after the date of the transfer, the transaction price of the apartment of this case is the same 308 dong 510 dong 308 dong 510. This is lawful as it is in accordance with the provisions of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as seen above.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserted that it is unlawful that the transaction price of the above 308 Dong 510, which was the sale on October 16, 2006, was based on the transaction price of the above 307 Dong 510, which was the trade price on December 10, 2006, which was the nearest date of the conclusion of the exchange contract of this case under Article 49 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. However, since the above 307 Dong 104 differs from the number of apartment buildings of this case, the above 307 Dong 104 of Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is different from the number of apartment buildings of this case, it cannot be deemed that the above 308 Dong 510, which was the same as the size, location, purpose, and direction of apartment buildings of this case among those purchased within the period of 3 months before and after the transfer date, it cannot be deemed that the market price is calculated based on this.

In addition, even if the market price should be calculated on the basis of the above 307 Do 104 307 Do 104 as the plaintiff's assertion, since the transaction value of the above 307 Do 104 307 Do 104 exceeds the market price calculated by the defendant as the OO members, it is legitimate that the disposition of this case is within the scope of legitimate tax amount. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal shall not be accepted as it is without merit.