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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax belonging to the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2013 is revoked.

A. The Plaintiff purchased 33 lots of land listed in the separate sheet from △△△△ (hereinafter “each land of this case”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 12, 2005 with respect to each land of this case on May 3, 2006.

B. On March 24, 2009, the Plaintiff sold 51 parcel of land including each of the instant parcels to the Kim○○ and two others, and on April 24, 2009, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 20, 209 with respect to each of the instant parcels of land.

C. On June 11, 2009, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax for the land of the above 51 parcel on June 11, 2009, and reported that the transfer value of the said 51 parcel of land was 00 won (○○○ (the part of each parcel of land of the instant case), 00 won for acquisition value (○○○) and 00 won for transfer loss (the part of each parcel of land of the instant case).

D. When the Plaintiff reported the acquisition value of each of the instant lands to ○○○○, the Defendant submitted a sales contract (Evidence A2, hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) on December 17, 2005, which was the said purchase price, on which December 17, 2005. However, when investigating the interest income tax on each of the instant lands and the claims on a provisional registration collateral and collateral security, which was implemented in 2012, the Defendant submitted a sales contract (Evidence B, hereinafter referred to as the “instant separate contract”) dated January 18, 2006, which was based on supporting documents. The Defendant submitted a false sales contract to the Plaintiff and reported an excessive acquisition value by calculating the acquisition value with the conversion value, thereby adding the KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,000 won for transfer income tax for the year 209 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant separate contract”).

E. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition on November 1, 2013, but was dismissed on March 4, 2014.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, Gap 3 evidence 1 to 33, Gap 5 evidence, Eul 1 to 4 and 7 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff, who operated the △△△ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), lent its operating funds to the △△△△△ in early 2004 to the first order of 2006, and was paid part of them. The Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract with the △△△ for the purpose of recovering the claim, and concluded the instant sales contract with the △△△△ for the purpose of collecting the claim. The purchase price shall be offset against the actual transaction price for each of the instant lands by the amount of the secured debt, the secured debt, the secured debt, the secured mortgage, the secured debt, the secured debt, the secured debt, the secured debt, the secured debt, the secured debt, and the loan debt against the Plaintiff. Although the Plaintiff actually performed the contract with the △△△△△△△△△, it shall be revoked on the ground that the actual transaction price of this case cannot be confirmed separately for the reason that the provisional registration was prepared for the purpose of transferring the secured debt.

(2) The Plaintiff did not prepare a double account book or double contract, and the Defendant considers the separate contract of this case as false, and even if there are no evident data supporting the falsity of the contract of this case, it is reasonable to conclude that the contract of this case was under-reported in an unjust manner and to calculate and impose an unfair under-reported penalty tax, and thus, it should

B. Facts of recognition

(1) From January 28, 2005 to April 21, 2006, the Plaintiff received at least KRW 00 billion on January 28, 2005, KRW 00 billion on April 14, 2005, KRW 00 billion on July 22, 2005, KRW 00 billion on August 31, 2005, KRW 00 billion on September 12, 2005, KRW 000,000 on September 16, 2005, KRW 00,000 on September 16, 2005, KRW 00,000 on December 27, 2005, KRW 00,000 on December 27, 2005, KRW 8 billion on the other hand, KRW 200,000 on September 26, 200,00 on the other hand.

(2) On October 17, 2005, the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership in the name of ○○ and Gab○○○○ on the instant land was completed. However, on January 18, 2006, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 00 million for the secured obligation of the above security provisional registration. On January 24, 2006, the registration of transfer of the above right to claim transfer was completed on the ground of transfer on January 23, 2006, and on May 3, 2006 based on the above provisional registration.

(3) On June 4, 2004, each of the instant land was registered to establish a mortgage on the same date in the future at ○○ Bank (hereinafter “○○ Bank”). On the other hand, on July 20, 2004, the debtor △△△△△△, the maximum debt amount ○0 million, and the registration of creation of a superficies on the same date was completed. On the other hand, on the other hand, on July 20, 2004, the debtor △△△△△, the debtor, the △△△△△△, the plaintiff, the debtor, the △△△△△△, the △△△△△△, the debtor, the △△△△△△△, the debtor, the △△△△△△△, and the plaintiff, the △△△△△△△△△△△, the debtor, and the △△△△△△△△△△△△, the ownership of each of the instant land transferred to the plaintiff on May 10, 2006.

(4) With respect to each of the instant lands in December 2012, the Plaintiff was subject to the establishment of a collateral security right or the transfer of a provisional registration, and was investigated on the omission of reporting interest income by a cash credit service provider, the Plaintiff leased KRW 200 million to this △△△△△△△△△ in July 22, 2005 after the loan of KRW 200,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00 won.

(5) Upon filing a transfer income tax return in 2009, the Plaintiff submitted the instant contract to the effect that the purchase price for each of the instant lands shall be KRW 0,000,000,000,000 for down payment at the time of the contract, and that the remainder 0,000 won shall be paid on March 3

(6) On May 2013, the Plaintiff was investigated in relation to the instant sales contract, and stated that the sales price KRW 00 million was determined by adding up KRW 00 million, KRW 00 million, KRW 000,000,000, KRW 000,000,000, KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, Gap 3's evidence 1 to 33, Gap 5 and 6 evidence, Eul 1 to 12 evidence, the result of each order to submit financial information to ○○ Fisheries Cooperatives, and ○○ Bank, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) Whether the acquisition value of each land of this case is 00 won or not

In addition, in light of the above facts, the plaintiff asserted that the purchase price is offset against the loan obligation of △△△△, and that the amount of the loan obligation was paid to ○0 million won, etc., the plaintiff did not present a consistent argument about the amount of the loan obligation, and did not disclose the details of settlement, including interest on the loan obligation, and the payment of ○0 million won is also not submitted. The amount of the loan obligation should be at least KRW 00 million, even if the provisional registration of the loan and the amount of the loan obligation under the right to collateral security was excluded to ○○○○○○○,000,000 won, even if the purchase price was excluded from the amount of the loan obligation under the right to collateral security, the amount of the loan obligation should be at least KRW 00,000,000,000. In light of the above facts, it is difficult to recognize that the amount of the loan obligation remaining only with the data submitted by the plaintiff reaches the above amount, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is unacceptable.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff underreporting due to an unlawful act

In full view of the following circumstances, i.e., the acquisition value of each land of this case as the purchase price in the contract of this case, and the fact that the Plaintiff submitted the separate contract of this case when investigating interest income, the contract of this case was prepared to evade capital gains tax by filing a high report on the acquisition value by asserting that the Plaintiff would offset the amount of the loan claim against the amount of the loan claim of this case for △△△△△△△△△△, without accurately settling the amount of the loan amount, on the basis that the existence of the loan claim of this case exists in detail. It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes an unlawful act as the preparation of false evidence. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part

3. Conclusion

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