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

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in the descriptions of Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, and Eul evidence 8, Gap evidence 8, 9, Eul evidence 1, and 2, with the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole.

A. On May 9, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate by means of sale and purchase on March 24, 2005, BB-dong 12-18 large scale 279.7 square meters, its ground reinforced concrete structure, and cement brick sloping roof 5 stories, neighborhood living facilities, accommodation facilities, housing, amusement facilities (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate after combining the said site and buildings”) and transferred it to the Pacific on the same day on November 15, 2005.

B. On June 1, 2006, when the Plaintiff reported the tax base of capital gains tax on the instant real estate, the Plaintiff reported both the actual acquisition value and the actual transfer value of the instant real estate at KRW 313,00,000.

C. On November 1, 2007, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that imposed and notified capital gains tax of KRW 178,164,880 on the Plaintiff on November 1, 2007 by verifying that the sales price under the instant real estate approval agreement was 630,00,000,000, based on the local confirmation on the said report of tax base of capital gains tax.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The KimD, which was taken over from the Plaintiff by lending the instant real estate under the name of the headA, was granted a loan of KRW 630,000,000 to the Plaintiff as collateral, and paid KRW 330,000 for the Plaintiff, and the remainder was also prepared between the headA and the sales contract with the headA to use the purchase price of KRW 330,000 for the Plaintiff. The sales contract was made between the headA and the headA, at the recommendation of the staff of the certified judicial scrivener office who made it necessary to calculate the acquisition price of KRW 330,000,00 in excess of the standard market price. As such, the sales price of the instant real estate was set at KRW 630,000,000, the actual transaction price at the time of the transfer of the instant real estate was set at KRW 330,000,000, the Defendant’s actual transfer price was considered as KRW 630,000,000,

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 6, 9 through 12, 15, 16, 17, Gap evidence 7, and 8's evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 4, and 6, the testimony of UNG witnesses of the first instance trial and some testimony of Park E-E of witnesses of the first instance trial.

(1) On March 24, 2005, the Plaintiff agreed to purchase the instant real estate from the YF for KRW 313,000,000,00 with the recommendation of the HE, and on May 9, 2005, the Plaintiff paid 330,000,000 with the instant real estate as security, with the loan of KRW 330,000,00 from the Busan High National Oil Cooperative. After completing the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff operated the accommodation business with the name of H head under the name of her mother after completing the registration of ownership transfer in the instant real estate.

(2) On May 9, 2005, the Plaintiff obtained a loan for the payment of the purchase price as above, and subsequently completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over KRW 429,00,000 with respect to the instant real estate in the future.

(3) However, since it is difficult to operate HH Moel and rather, the above loan interest has increased, the Plaintiff was granted a loan of KRW 630,00,000 from Pacific Mutual Savings Bank on July 12, 2005 with the introduction of YE as the principal debtor and KimD as the joint guarantor, and on the security of July 13, 2005, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 819,00,000,000 with the maximum amount of the claim regarding the instant real estate at the above bank on July 13, 2005, and was paid KRW 606,745,260 except for the fee as the head of Dong in the name of KS.

(4) Of the loans from the above Pakistan Mutual Savings Bank, KRW 330,00,000 out of the loans were used by the Plaintiff to repay KRW 331,181,230 to the Plaintiff of the principal and interest of the loan to the Busan High Military Cooperative. The remainder of the loans was divided into KRW 171,736,000, KRW 80,000, KRW 20,000, and KRW 20,000, respectively.

(5) On November 15, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) entered into a sales contract with the head of the Gu (the name holder of the GlaD) with the purchase price of KRW 630,00,000; (b) obtained approval seal from theCC market pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate; and (c) completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate to the head of the Gu, along with documentary evidence of the application for registration. On June 30, 2006, the head of the Gu completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate to the KimD; and (d) currently, the KimL acquired the instant real estate for a public sale on November 30, 2007.

(6) On November 15, 2005, the soldier completed the transfer of ownership on the instant real estate, and completed the registration of creation of a new mortgage on the same day with the maximum amount of the bonds KRW 819,00,000 and the principal debtor as the head of the bank on the same day.

(7) Meanwhile, a sales contract made between the Plaintiff and the headA exists, including a sales contract stating that the purchase price attached to the Plaintiff was KRW 315,00,000,000, which entered the attached sales price as KRW 630,000,000, and a sales contract stating that the purchase price attached to the Plaintiff was KRW 330,000,000, and a sales contract stating that the purchase price claimed by the Plaintiff as a real contract is KRW 330,000,000, and all of them are made on November 15, 2005.

(8) The appraised value of the instant real estate as of May 2, 2005 is KRW 944,473,00, and the appraised value as of March 20, 2007 is KRW 804,329,840, and the successful bid value at the time of public sale is KRW 412,165,90.

D. Determination

Unless there are special circumstances, the seal of approval issued by the parties to a transaction and affixed with the seal of approval of the head of a Si/Gun, etc. shall be presumed to have been prepared in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, and the assertion that the contract was prepared differently from the actual ones shall be proved (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2353, Apr. 9, 1993)

As to the instant case, on November 15, 2005, the Minister of Health and Welfare stated the sale price of the instant real estate as KRW 630,00,00 in the seal of approval attached to the order to dispute the ownership of the instant real estate. As such, the actual transfer price of the instant real estate is presumed to be KRW 630,000. The actual transfer price of the instant real estate is presumed to be KRW 630,000 in the above seal of approval, not KRW 330,000 in the above seal of approval, and the evidence No. 1330,000 in the evidence No. 1334 and No. 14-1 and No. 2 stated above are difficult to find that the actual transfer price of the instant real estate is KRW 330,00,000 in the signature of the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence that the actual transfer price of the instant real estate is deemed to be KRW 300,00 in the signature of the certified judicial scrivener, in light of the following circumstances.

Meanwhile, according to the above evidence, at the time when the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate on November 15, 2005, it can be acknowledged that the head of the Dong acquired the obligation of the maximum debt amount of 819,000,000 won (the maximum debt amount of 630,000,000 won) in lieu of payment of the purchase price. If the transferor transferred the real estate for which the establishment registration was completed and the transferor acquired the obligation of the instant real estate to the transferee, then the transferor would obtain profits from changing the obligation of the right to collateral security, so the debt amount equivalent to the debt amount is subject to capital gains tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du20018, Jan. 21, 200). Thus, it is reasonable to view that the amount of debt 630,000,000 won which the Plaintiff acquired with the head of the Dong as the transfer price of the instant real estate.

Therefore, since the purchase price of KRW 630,000,000 stated in the above-mentioned concurrent contract is consistent with the actual transaction price of the real estate of this case, the defendant's disposition of this case based on such premise is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.