2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

"A. On December 13, 1995, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to transfer the instant land to OOOOO(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”). On April 23, 1998, the Plaintiff: (a) acquired 1,669 square meters in OO-Eup OO-si 288-3 OOOO; (b) acquired 288-5 OOO-5 3,452 square meters in this Ri on April 23, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land by summing up two parcels”); (c) on October 1, 2004, the Plaintiff paid the instant land to OOOO; (d) on November 1, 2004; and (e) on March 22, 2005, the Plaintiff applied the special deduction for transfer income tax to OOOO; and (e) on March 1, 2005, the Plaintiff paid the remainder of the instant land to OOO29.20.15.

C. On April 2, 2012, the Defendant conducted a field investigation on the Plaintiff, and excluded the special long-term possession deduction by deeming the instant land as land for non-business use, and issued the instant disposition that corrected and notified the transfer income tax OOO in 209.

D. On July 4, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal regarding the instant disposition, but was dismissed on September 7, 2012.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of evidence A2 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

"Transfer subject to taxation of capital gains tax" means that an asset is actually transferred for price due to sale, etc., regardless of registration or enrollment. The land in this case is a site for the extension of the school site of the school foundation BBA (CCCA) (hereinafter "CCCA"), a purchaser of the land in this case, set the period of payment for the formal remainder of five years after the date of payment due to the restriction on transfer registration of ownership under the Farmland Act, the delay in the urban planning management decision due to the delay in the purchase of another scheduled site, and the delay in the urban planning management decision due to the delay in the purchase of the land in this case, and was actually transferred to the CCCA after the payment of down payment, the first and second intermediate payment, and then the use of the land in this case and the permission of profits therefrom were granted. Therefore, the transfer time of the land in this case is not on December 15, 2009, but on March 2, 2005, which was paid the second intermediate payment." Therefore, the disposition in this case as of March 2009 is unlawful.

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The instant land is one of the land purchased by the CCC University to purchase land adjacent to the existing school site, expand educational and welfare facilities, and promote authorization for change of facilities.

"2) The sales contract of this case is accompanied by "the terms and conditions of the sales contract and the statement of performance," and the contents thereof are as follows (excluding overlapping contents).- The plaintiff will issue a letter of application to convert land into a separate land upon receipt of the second intermediate payment (a certificate of seal impression attached) so that the land of this case can be used as a school site at the CCC University.

- The instant land shall be paid as the repayment of the debt that was established as the first intermediate payment, and at the time of the second intermediate payment, a mortgage contract shall be concluded at a certified judicial scrivener office designated by the Plaintiff at an amount not exceeding 130% of the purchase price, and the establishment of a mortgage shall be registered. However, the cost of establishing a mortgage shall be borne by CCC University.

- After the determination of school facilities, the instant land shall be provided to the CCC University with all documents necessary for the transfer of ownership (such as a certificate of seal imprint, etc.) when it is possible to transfer the ownership after obtaining the approval for change of the implementation of the urban planning project after obtaining the approval for change of the ownership

- Under the instant land sales contract, the remainder OOOO shall be paid on December 30, 2009; however, prior to such payment, it shall be exchanged with the transfer documents when it is possible to transfer the ownership with the determination of school facilities and the project implementation permission; and if it is impracticable to transfer ownership by December 30, 2009, the remaining payment date, the Plaintiff and the CCC University shall consult with each other to transfer the ownership within two years from the remainder payment date.

- When the Plaintiff seeks to use the instant land after the payment of the second intermediate payment, the Plaintiff shall bear all responsibilities and expenses incurred in ordering writers even before the remainder payment date.

3) The Plaintiff received the down payment, the first, and the second intermediate payment from the CCC University at each due date. On March 4, 2005, immediately after the second intermediate payment was made, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on the instant land as the maximum amount of claims, the OOOO of the maximum amount of claims, and the CCC University at the time of the second intermediate payment.

4) The CCC University set the right to collateral security at the maximum limit of 130% of the purchase price for land upon receiving a written consent to land use as a condition of a sales contract, instead of paying a down payment and an intermediate payment, with only 1-5% of the purchase price, which is a part of the purchase price, remaining at the end of 2009, which is the expected time of the completion of the purchase of the land for the sake of the expansion of the school site.

5) On August 2, 2010, the CCC University was approved to determine an urban management plan and a detailed facility development plan and publicly notified the relevant details. On September 1, 2010, the CCC University completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Relevant provisions

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(i) the time of the transfer of assets;

The term “transfer” under the Income Tax Act refers to a case where an asset is actually transferred for price, and in a case where the ownership of the land is actually transferred for price, it shall be deemed that the price of the land has been paid to the extent that it can be deemed that the price of the land was paid almost in full by social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu286, Feb. 14, 1984). In addition, in a case where the sale and purchase of the land is paid in two or more installments, and the use and profit date shall be the date of liquidation in a case where the period from

2) In the instant case:

According to the facts acknowledged earlier, according to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff received approximately KRW 95% of the total purchase price of March 2, 2005, and around March 4, 2005, a maximum amount of KRW OOOO in the instant land was set up and provided with a mortgage on the instant land, and the written consent was issued to the CC University on March 4, 2005. On the other hand, if transfer of ownership is possible, such as obtaining permission for the implementation of an urban planning project even before the due date for the remainder payment, it can be known that the ownership was transferred along with the remainder payment. Accordingly, the instant land was paid in advance on March 2, 2005, or made it possible to use and benefit from the instant land to CCC on March 4, 2005 or on March 4, 2005.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, in calculating the gains on transfer of the land of this case, the transfer time is deemed to be March 2, 2005 or March 4, 2005, but the disposition of this case where the transfer income tax for the year 2009 was imposed on the Plaintiff on the ground that it was December 15, 2009.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified.