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

A. On November 9, 199, the Plaintiff acquired from Song-si No. 000, 000, and 000 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real property”) the underground floor of the x 000, 000, and 100 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real property”) from the HongB on November 17, 199, acquired from the HongB, and transferred the instant real property and the instant No. 104 to the Gangwon-si around March 2005.

B. On April 8, 2005, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 63,050,050 capital gains tax by making the transfer value of the instant real estate and KRW 585,000,000,000,000,000 won (i.e., acquisition value of the instant real estate + KRW 450,000,000 + KRW 15,000,000,000,000 won).

C. On June 14, 2010, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s above details of return, and deemed the acquisition value of the instant real estate as KRW 230 million, and corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 135,282,945 for the transfer income tax reverted to the year 2005. On January 10, 2011, the Defendant again issued a correction and notification by reducing the said transfer income tax to KRW 85,864,29 for the reason that the acquisition value of KRW 15 million was omitted in the calculation of the said amount of transfer income tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on November 16, 2010, but the said request was dismissed on January 17, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 2, 3, 4, and 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from SongA to KRW 450 million, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from KRW 230 million is unlawful as it violates the principle of substantial taxation.

Although the Plaintiff did not use a seal imprint at the time of the sales contract with Song-A, the Plaintiff’s seal imprint is affixed to the sales contract (No. 4-2) stating that the purchase price of the instant real estate is KRW 230 million. This is made by means of a false seal imprint and a certificate of personal seal impression affixed by the head of Song-A and a licensed real estate agent office to use the instant real estate in the registration of transfer of ownership. The seller Song-A acquired the instant real estate at KRW 24,300,000,000 won during the voluntary auction procedure, and it is difficult to deem that the successful bid price was sold at KRW 23,300,000,000,000 won. Considering the fact that there is a big difference between the Plaintiff’s purchase price of the instant real estate at a similar time and the usual purchase price at the same time, it is not reliable that the Plaintiff acquired KRW 230,000,000 as stated in

B. Determination

을 제1호증의 1, 2, 3, 을 제7호증, 갑 제4호증의 1, 2의 각 기재와 이 법원의 군포시 ××동장에 대한 사실조회결과 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 이 사건 부동산은 원고가 매수할 당시 그 면적 합계가 321.88㎡( = 124.82 ㎡ + 42.90㎡ + 154.16㎡)였는데, 이 사건 부동산의 매매대금이 4억 5,000만원으로 되어 있는 1999. 11. 5.자 매매계약서(갑 제4호증의 1, 이하 '이 사건 제1계약서'라 한다)에는 그 면적이 이보다 훨씬 큰 약 172평(≒567㎡)으로 기재되어 있는 반면 1999. 11. 4.자 매매계약서(갑 제4호증의 2, 이하 '이 사건 제2계약서'라 한다)에는 그 면적이 이와 거의 같은 321.93㎡로 기재되어 있는 점, 이 사건 제2계약서에는 원고와 매도인 송 AA의 당시 인감도장이 날인되어 있으나 이 사건 제1계약서에는 원고의 다른 도장이 날인되어 있을 뿐만 아니라 매도인 송AA의 경우도 인감도장이 아닌 단순한 형태의 막도장이 날인되어 있는 점, 매도인 송AA는 이 사건 제1계약서를 본 적이 없고 매매 대금은 2억 3,000만원인데 그 중 1억 3,000만원은 원고가 융자금채무를 인수하기로 하여 나머지 1억원만을 입금받았으며, 그 밖에 권리금으로 1억 3,000만원을 더 받았다고 증언하고 있는 점, 이 사건 제2계약서에도 매매대금을 2억 3,000만원으로 하면서 융자금 1억 3,000만원은 매수인이 승계하고 계약금으로 2,000만원, 중도금으로 8,000만원, 잔금으로 1억 3,000만원을 지급하는 것으로 기재되어 있어, 그 총액이 3억 6,000만원인 것은 위 송AA의 증언과도 부합하는 점, 원고가 이 사건 부동산을 취득할 무렵 매도인 송AA의 계좌에 1억원이 입금된 점, 원고의 인감증명서가 첨부된 중개인의 거래 사실확인서에도 매매가액이 2억 3,000만원으로 기재되어 있는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 원고는 이 사건 부동산을 2억 3,000만원에 취득하였다고 봄이 상당하다.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the contract form No. 2 of this case was made false, but the circumstances that the right to collateral security, which is higher than the total acquisition value of the real estate of this case and the right to collateral security, was set at the maximum claim amount of KRW 378 million, and the statement of No. 7 of the evidence No. 7, are insufficient to reverse the above fact-finding, and thus, the plaintiff'

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.