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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay 5% interest per annum to the plaintiff from November 30, 2012 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

A. On July 5, 2002, the Plaintiff (the trade name before the change was referred to as “BB cooking”) was a corporation established around July 5, 2002, and completed the registration of ownership transfer from Do Do Do Do as follows with respect to the total of 12-2,24,241 square meters in the O-type O-type O-5, 12-9 square meters in the same Ri 12-14, 12-14, 338 square meters in the same Ri 12-16 square meters in the same Ri 22,045 square meters in the same Ri 12-17, 12-17, 12-17, 12-18 square meters in the same Ri 29 square meters in the same Ri 12-28,241 square meters in the same Ri 290 square meters in the same Ri (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

No.

applicable land

(O) OO-section O-O Ri

Transfer Registration of Ownership

Grounds for registration (trade)

Date of registration;

1

12-5 Size of forest land 7 square meters;

September 3, 2002

October 9, 2002

2

12-9 Lands of forest land 154 square meters;

〃 4

〃 4

3

12-14 Lands of forest land 1,338С

〃 4

〃 4

4

12-16 Lands of forest 22,045С

October 6, 2002

October 14, 2002

5

12-17 Forest land 19,176 square meters;

6

12-18㎡ of forest land 29С

September 3, 2002

October 9, 2002

7

12-28 2,241 square meters of forest land;

〃 4

〃 4

B. From June 25, 2003 to August 31, 2003, the regional regional tax office under the Defendant’s jurisdiction has conducted a tax investigation on the 0dubBB (the trade name before the change is referred to as “BBB”; hereinafter referred to as “the 0dubB”) that was the representative director of the Plaintiff from June 25, 2003 to August 31, 2003, the corporate tax office conducted a tax investigation on the 0dubBB (the trade name before the change is referred to as “the 0dubBB”; hereinafter referred to as “the 00dubB”) and notified the Plaintiff of the tax base of this case by verifying that the 2000 OBB BB was a related party to the instant land, which was part of the Plaintiff’s total of 12 1,144 OE, 12-5,172 square meters of the same Ri 12-622,187 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “related land”).

On March 16, 2004, the head of Suwon Tax Office corrected the corporate tax for the business year 2002 of the Plaintiff as an OOOO, and notified the Plaintiff of it.After which, around February 1, 2005, the head of Suwon Tax Office, separately from the land in this case on or around October 25, 2002, issued an increase in the amount of OOOO for the business year 2002 business year corporate tax for the Plaintiff (i.e., the amount of OOOOO-type 32-7 forest land 9,974 square meters from KimCC-type OO-type OO-type OO-type OO-type OO-type OO-type O-type OO-type OO-type OO-type OO-type oO-type -OO-type 202.

C. Around February 13, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition for grievance with the purport that the Plaintiff paid OOO as the acquisition price of the instant land, and thus, it is unreasonable to impose tax by transferring ownership free of charge. As a result, on May 21, 2007, the National Ombudsman recommended the head of Suwon Tax Office to re-examine evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to rectify the disposition of corporate tax for 2002 business year.

D. On September 6, 2007, the head of Suwon Tax Office corrected the acquisition value of the land of this case as OOO(=OOOA x total of 44,990 square meters/78,503 square meters of land of this case x less than KRW 44,990 square meters, but less than KRW 503 square meters of land of this case) as the corresponding liability of the Plaintiff’s loan OOOB, which was recognized as the corresponding liability and imposed by OOOOO as the amount reduced from the initial amount of 2002 business year (hereinafter “instant disposition”). In addition, the head of Suwon Tax Office imposed the Plaintiff’s reduction of OOOB as corporate tax for 202 business years (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On November 30, 2012, the Plaintiff paid the corporate tax for the business year 2002 to the head of Suwon Tax Office (=OOOOwon + additional OOOOwon). Of them, the corporate tax amount related to the land in this case is OOOwon.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-1-1, Eul evidence 2-1 to Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 5-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The land of this case is not donated by the Plaintiff, but purchased at the KRW OO of the direct purchase price from DB. However, the head of Suwon Tax Office determined that it was actually donated by a specially related person, and calculated the acquisition value of the land of this case as OOO, and included it in the gross income, and the disposition of this case was made by the Plaintiff as losses because it is significant and apparent that the defect was considerably and obvious, and thus, the above disposition is null and void, and the Defendant is obligated to return OOO won paid by the Plaintiff in relation to the land of this case as unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

In order for a taxation disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegal ground for the disposition is insufficient, and its defect is objectively obvious in an important statute, and it is necessary to examine the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law that serves as the basis for the taxation disposition in a teleological context and to reasonably consider the specific case itself. From this point of view, the taxation disposition against a person who does not have any legal relation or factual relation that is subject to taxation is grave and obvious, but if it can only be clarified only when the factual basis is examined on the legal relation or factual relation that is not subject to taxation because there is objective reason to believe that it is subject to taxation due to the objective circumstance that it is subject to taxation, it cannot be said that it is apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be said that the taxation disposition that misleads the fact is null and void as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu12634, Jun. 26, 1998).

According to the facts found in Paragraph 1 and No. 7, it is reasonable to conclude that the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant land was 00,000,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,00 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,00 won for 30,000 won for 20.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.