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

The court's reasoning, among the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance, the part "...." to the third to fourth to fourth is the same as the corresponding part of the decision of the court of first instance other than the following "paragraph 2", and therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

B. Determination

(1) In principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of a taxation disposition, including the tax base of capital gains tax, since the tax authority imposes the burden of proof on the taxpayer, and the tax authority imposes the burden of proof on the taxpayer as necessary expenses that are the basis of the determination of taxable income in principle, and the tax authority imposes the burden of proof on the taxpayer, as well as the necessary expenses that are favorable to the taxpayer, and the facts that are the basis of the necessary expenses are most within the controlled area of the taxpayer. Therefore, in a case where it is difficult for the tax authority to prove the taxpayer by taking into account the difficulty of proof or equity between the parties, it is reasonable to deem that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving the existence of necessary expenses claimed by the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu10909, Jul. 28, 1992; 201Du3210, May

(2) However, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1-3 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and the whole purport of the arguments, and on Feb. 20, 2002, and July 3, 2002, 200, a total of 000 won was transferred from the plaintiff's OE account at the OE KimE account, the plaintiff's punishment, but it is recognized, and it is possible to find out the above legal principles and the facts cited above and evidence, etc., in light of all the following circumstances, the plaintiff's additional 00 won, other than the amount that the plaintiff submitted at the first instance court and the appellate court recognized as necessary expenses for the acquisition of the right to move in in in this case, is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff paid the above 000 won to F as premium, etc. related to the acquisition of the right to move in in in this case, and unless there is no objective evidence to acknowledge it, the disposition of this case is not unlawful.

① The Plaintiff asserted that the disposition of the instant case was unlawful and claimed for its revocation to the Tax Tribunal, and that on August 7, 2002, the Plaintiff paid 000 won to the FF with premium on the acquisition of the right to move in of the instant case (see, e.g., records 22), and that the Plaintiff acquired the right to move in of the instant case and paid 0000 won to the FF at its premium, such as the written contract for the transfer of the right to move in of the instant case.

② In addition, the plaintiff transferred the above 00 won to O by borrowing the above 00 won from MaE, and the plaintiff later asserted that the plaintiff repaid the above loan, but there are no objective evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's above assertion, and there are no other evidences to acknowledge it.

③ On November 29, 2005, the Plaintiff reported to the tax authority that the said KRW 000 was not included in the acquisition value at the time of the preliminary return of transfer income tax related to the transfer of the right to move in in the instant case, and otherwise, there is no evidence to deem that the FF was paid the said KRW 00 with respect to the said transfer of the right to move in the instant case.

④ Meanwhile, in the appellate trial, the Plaintiff’s assertion that Nonparty FF’s factual relations similar to this case were identical to that of this case in the case of revocation of the disposition imposing capital gains tax on the Tax Tribunal, and as long as there are cases where the Tax Tribunal recognized the fact that the FF would pay the FF’s premium to the EF claimed by the FF, the Plaintiff also should be recognized, according to the overall purport of the statement and pleading as to the evidence No. 7, and the case of the FF claimed by the Plaintiff cannot be readily determined that the facts and relevant evidence are identical, and it does not necessarily mean that the Plaintiff paid the FF’s above premium of KRW 000,000, as alleged by the Tax Tribunal.

(3) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff paid the above KRW 000 to EF is not acceptable.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.