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

A. On October 10, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired the sales right (hereinafter referred to as the “sale right of this case”) against OO 000,000 OO 000,000 units (hereinafter referred to as the “the apartment of this case”) from DoD on the land of this case, and on March 29, 2002, filed a return on the tax base of capital gains tax with 000 won when transferring the sales right of this case to the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”).

B. After that, on January 16, 2007, the Intervenor transferred the instant apartment to KimE and reported and paid the transfer income tax, and reported the transfer income tax base to KRW 000 with the acquisition value of the instant apartment sales right at KRW 000, and the Defendant calculated the transfer value of the instant sales right to the Plaintiff as KRW 000, and issued a tax notice on January 21, 201 to the Plaintiff on January 21, 201, by calculating the transfer value of the instant sales right to the Plaintiff as KRW 00 (including additional tax) for the transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff in 2002 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On March 21, 2011, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, caused an appeal to the Tax Tribunal, and was dismissed on September 1, 2011.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-sured facts, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff entered into a contract on the transfer of the sale right of this case with the purchase price of KRW 000,00, added with the premium of KRW 000,00,000, accumulated in installments (in total of KRW 000 and KRW 4 times of contract deposit) among the supply price of the apartment of this case with the intervenor, and the sales contract ("the first contract of this case" hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case") prepared by setting the purchase price of the right of this case as KRW 00,00 is consistent with the fact, and the sale contract of KRW 00,00,000, which was submitted by the intervenor ("the second contract of this case" hereinafter referred to as "the second contract of this case") was made falsely. However, the disposition of this case where the defendant only accepted the intervenor's assertion and imposed capital gains

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The facts of Gap 1, 2, 5, 11, 2, 12, and 4, and the testimony of Kim F, are comprehensiveed with the overall purport of the pleadings, and ① head DD, the first buyer of the apartment complex of this case, around April 199, entered the housing price of 00 won (00 won, 000 won, and 00 won, 00 won) from the Korea National Housing Corporation, and ② the intervenor entered the sales contract of this case into 0.0, 00 won, 00 won, 00 won, 00 won, 00 won, 00 won, 20,000 won, and 0,00 won, 0 won, 20,000 won, 20,00 won, and 0,00 won, 20,00 won, 0,00 won, 30,000 won, and 0,00 won, 2,00 won, 3.0.

The following circumstances revealed in light of the above facts, i.e., (i) the right to purchase the apartment from the Korea National Housing Corporation to transfer the right to purchase the apartment at a price lower than the supply price, and (ii) the contract in the case of the case of the case of the second is on which the intervenor’s seal impression is affixed, and the purchase price is close to the actual transaction price of the ordinary apartment near the apartment in this case at the time of the purchase price, and (iii) on the other hand, the contract in the case of the first contract in this case states that the intervenor’s seal impression is not affixed and the purchase price is less than the price at the time of the lease, and even if the plaintiff’s assertion, only

In light of the circumstances such as the fact that the Plaintiff reported the sale price as the purchase price of the apartment in this case, and the fact that the details of the purchase price of the apartment in this case, which was made by the Intervenor, were written in a false document for the purpose of reducing the transfer price, and that the details of the purchase price of the apartment in this case, which was made by the Intervenor, were almost consistent with the amount of the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Korea National Housing Corporation and the Korean National Bank in connection with the purchase price of the apartment in this case, and that the second contract in this case was made in line with the fact of the transfer of the sale price of the apartment in this case between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition imposing the transfer income tax on the Plaintiff is lawful, considering the transfer price of the sale

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.