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

A. On October 7, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred to the Gyeonggi-do, instead of Gyeonggi-gun, KRW 000,000,000,000 (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) the transfer value at the time of filing a report on capital gains tax shall be the actual transaction value; and (c) the acquisition value at the time of filing a report on capital gains tax shall be the actual transaction value; and (d) the acquisition value at the time of acquiring the instant land as payment in substitutes but the payment in substitutes was unclear; (b) on the ground that the converted value under Article 176-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act was 00,000,000,00

B. The instant land is divided into 00-2 Li-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-do-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-do-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si, 2002-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si, 2002-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si, 200-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri.

C. On October 28, 200, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on October 28, 2000, which was under review on the request for review. On November 17, 201, the Defendant: (a) deemed that KRW 000,000 is the acquisition value of the land before dividing the contract prepared by the Plaintiff and the MayorBB and obtained an approval seal from the head of Si/Gun; and (b) calculated the acquisition value of the land of this case as KRW 00,000,000 (= KRW 1,723 square meters / 1,802 square meters) with the acquisition value of the land of this case as KRW 1,723 square meters; and (c) revised the transfer income tax for 2010, with the special rural development tax as KRW 000,000 (hereinafter “the second disposition of imposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including above numbers), Gap evidence No. 8-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Of the imposition disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2011 (the amount that was corrected after the first 000 won was imposed on August 1, 201), the amount exceeding KRW 000 and the amount exceeding KRW 000 of the special rural development tax (the first 000 won was imposed on August 1, 201 and the amount that was adjusted after the later 00 won was increased, but the total amount of tax was reduced at the same time with the capital gains tax) is unlawful for the following reasons.

① The actual transaction price that the Plaintiff acquired from BB on November 30, 2005 due to payment in kind, etc. in the instant land is not KRW 000,000, not KRW [(000 + (000 won +00 won +00 won + 000 won - 1,723 square meters]. The necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer price are not KRW 000, which the Defendant recognized (=123 square meters + 1,802 square meters) but rather KRW 000 (=00 +000 +000). The detailed details are as follows.

【Detailed Statement of Acquisition Value of 000 won】

◇ 000원 : 원고가 경BB를 상대로 제기한 서울지방법원 1996. 4. 23 선고 96가단 233호 사건의 판결에서 지급을 명한 1990. 2. 2.자 대여금 000원 및 이에 대한 1996. 2. 11. 부터 2005. 11. 29. 까지의 이자 000원의 합계액(000원의 대여일은 1990. 2. 2. 이고, 000원의 대여일은 1990. 3. 6.임 )

◇ 000원 : 원고가 1990. 3. 6 경BB에게 대여한 000원 및 이에 대한 1990. 3. 7.부터 2005. 11. 29.까지의 이자 000원의 합계액

◇ 000원 : 원고가 1990. 2. 3 경BB로부터 액면금 000원 및 200만 원의 약속어음공정증서를 받고 대여한 금원

◇ 000원 : 원고가 분할 전 토지 1,802㎡를 취득할 때 경BB에게 추가로 지급한 대금

◇ 000원 : 1996. 1. 10. 수용되어 2002. 6. 5. 이 사건 토지의 분할 전 토지 2,790㎡ 에서 분할된 같은 리 000-2 전 988㎡'에 관하여 원고가 압류 ・ 전부받아 추심한 수용보상금

[Detailed 000 won of necessary expenses]

◇ 000원 : 위 전 988㎡가 수용되자 원고가 경BB에 대한 채권을 확보하기 위하여 수용 보상금청구채권의 압류 등에 지출한 비용

◇ 000원 : 원고가 분할 전 토지 1,802㎡를 취득할 때 납부한 등록세 및 취득세

◇ 000원 : 원고가 이 사건 토지를 경AA에게 매도할 당시 소개비로 지급한 금원

(2) Even if not, since the actual transaction price of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land is not verified, such acquisition price shall be based on the conversion price.

B. Determination

(1) Judgment as to the Plaintiff’s assertion

(A) Part on acquisition value

First, the part of the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the acquisition value is KRW 000 (=00 +00 +00 +000) with the total purchase price of KRW 1,802 square meters prior to the partition. Of these, the part excluding KRW 000 additionally paid is the obligation extinguished by payment in kind. The purport of the Plaintiff’s claim is that: (a) KRW 000,00, which was deducted from the total purchase price of KRW 1,802 square meters prior to the partition of the land in this case by the Plaintiff’s acquisition of compensation for expropriation of KRW 988 square meters out of KRW 2,790,000 prior to the partition of the land in this case by means of a claim attachment, etc.; and (b) KRW 00,000, which was a final purchase price of KRW 1,8

However, barring any special circumstance, it is presumed that the transaction party's approval seal of the head of Si/Gun, etc. was prepared in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, and that the contract was prepared differently (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2353, Apr. 9, 1993). Thus, in full view of each of the following circumstances, each of the evidence and the statement in Gap's Nos. 1 through 5, 8 (including each number), which can be known together with the purport of the entire pleadings in the above evidence and the statement in Gap's No. 4 and 9 (including each number), it is insufficient to recognize that the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition of 1,802 square meters of the previous land at the time of division exceeds 00 won of the plaintiff's assertion, or exceeds 00 billion won of the purchase price under the above contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition of the land at the time of acquisition of the land in this case is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff's allegation in this case is without merit.

The plaintiff seems to have received the above land expropriation compensation through the seizure and assignment order around June 1997. However, the title of the plaintiff's seizure and assignment order was an executory exemplification of the above judgment. However, the above land expropriation compensation was appropriated to the interest or delay damages (in case where it is appropriated from February 11, 1996 to June 11, 1997, it is about KRW 00) out of the above judgment against the plaintiff's claim against GyeongB arising until the time of receipt of the land expropriation compensation, and was appropriated to part of the principal.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the total amount of the judgment payment claims is included in KRW 000,00 in total purchase price of 1,802 square meters prior to the division, without considering the above land expropriation appropriation appropriation, is contrary to the legal principles of appropriation of performance (the time order does not coincide with the time order and the logical conclusion is difficult).

The amount of loans claimed by the Plaintiff is KRW 000 and the interest or delay damages thereof. If the loan amount of KRW 000 claimed by the Plaintiff was due on March 6, 1990 and April 5, 1990, as alleged by the Plaintiff, if the loan amount of KRW 1996 was not due to the claim for the above loan claim in 1996, the above loan amount of KRW 00 is more likely to be regarded as the loan amount of KRW 00 and the loan amount of KRW 00 did not exist separately from the above loan amount of KRW 00 (the above loan amount of KRW 00,000, the loan amount of KRW 00,000, out of the above loan amount of KRW 190, March 6, 1990, the loan amount of KRW 00,000, is included in the principal amount of the above loan amount).

㉣ 원고가 주장하는 대여금 000원은 당초 소장에서는 주장하지 않다가 2012. 5. 4.자 준비서면에서야 비로소 이를 주장하기 시작한 점, 그 공정증서의 약속어음 발행일이 1990. 2. 2로서 위 판결금 중 000원의 대여일인 1990. 2. 2.과 같은 점을 감안하면, 원고 주장과 같이 위 대여금 000원이 1996년의 위 대여금 청구소송의 청구에서 빠져 있었다면, 그 소제기 무렵 위 대여금 000원의 채권은 위 대여금 000원과 별도로 존재하지 않았던 채권으로 볼 여지가 많다(위 대여금 000원은 위 판결금 중 원금 000원에 포함되는 것으로 볼 여지가 있다).

It seems that the Plaintiff does not have a payment contract or other equivalent debt settlement data at the time of acquiring 1,802 square meters of land before division except for the above approval seal contract.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid KRW 000,000 in addition to the claim extinguished by payment in kind at the time when the Plaintiff acquired 1,802 square meters of land before partition solely with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 5-1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(B) Part concerning necessary expenses

① With respect to the part concerning necessary expenses among the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is reasonable for the Defendant to consider necessary expenses in addition to KRW 000,000, which is divided in proportion to the size of the area, since the Plaintiff’s expenses incurred in the seizure, etc. of the claim for expropriation compensation in order to secure the Plaintiff’s claim against GB on January 10, 1996, which was much more than before the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land, as the expenses incurred in the seizure, etc. of the claim for expropriation compensation in order to secure the Plaintiff’s claim against HBB, and it is difficult to recognize as the necessary expenses for the instant land. The portion of the registration tax paid when acquiring the land 1,802 square meters prior to the division, and the acquisition tax and the portion of the instant land as KRW 00,000, which are divided in proportion to the size of the area. The Defendant’s submission

(2) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view the actual transaction value at the time of the acquisition of the instant land as 00 won under the above approval seal contract (=1,723/1,802m2) as 00 won under the above approval seal contract as seen by the Defendant. As such, it cannot be said that the actual transaction value of acquiring the instant land is not confirmed. The Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise is without merit.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of capital gains tax on August 1, 201 and tax on special rural development tax on the imposition of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff and the tax on special rural development tax, which is the remainder after reduction or correction, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.