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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 295,341,090 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on February 1, 2017 shall be revoked.

(a) The plaintiff's BB shall be the forest land AAA-1 of March 6, 1995, AA of the Gyeonggi AA group of March 6, 1995

16,364 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On December 29, 1999, a registration of ownership transfer was completed with respect to the instant land divided into Ri AA-1 Forest Land and 15,251 square meters, such as Ria-3 Forest and Forest Land, and 1,113 square meters. Since then, CCC received the registration of ownership transfer on July 26, 2013 for the instant land on the ground of sale by voluntary auction on July 26, 2013.

B. On August 23, 2014, BB reported and paid the transfer income tax following the transfer to CCC with the acquisition value of the instant land as KRW 765 million.

C. As a result of the tax investigation conducted on the above capital gains tax of BB, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 295,341,090 (including additional tax) for the capital gains tax belonging to 2013 on February 1, 2017 on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land with the permission for bid price of KRW 64,50,00 in the auction procedure of real estate under the name of BB, and the acquisition price of the instant land was KRW 64,50,000,000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 22, 2017, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 28, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 16 through 19, 23, 24, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased the instant land from DD in KRW 765 million, paid the said purchase price to DD in full, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land. However, after the Plaintiff paid intermediate payment, the voluntary auction procedure for the instant land was commenced, and in that process, DD received a successful bid in the Plaintiff’s name to promptly receive any balance from DD from the Plaintiff, and eventually entered only the cause for registration as a successful bidder. Therefore, the acquisition price of the instant land is KRW 765 million, which is the purchase price for the instant land, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful for the reason that the acquisition price of the instant land is KRW 64.5 million, the successful bid price.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On April 27, 1994, the Plaintiff’s name BB purchased the instant land with DD in the name of DB in the amount of KRW 765 million. Of the above payments, KRW 100 million was the date of concluding a contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 400 million was paid on May 15, 1994; KRW 265 million, the remainder of KRW 100 million was paid on December 10, 1994; DB made a sales contract (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”). At the same time, DB made a contract with BB for the use of the instant land as a grave.

2) On April 18, 1994, 485,426,635 won, and the Plaintiff’s partner in the Han Securities Account under the name of EE

The FF Account was withdrawn from May 3, 1994 to KRW 10 million, and KRW 90 million on May 4, 1994, respectively.

3) As to the instant land, the registration of provisional disposition against the prohibition of disposal in FF name was completed on July 16, 1994 with respect to the registration of establishment of a mortgage over KRW 40 million with respect to the maximum debt amount under BB name on July 21, 1994. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 14487, Jul. 21, 1994>

4) On September 27, 1994, Suwon District Court Decision 94TA Bank filed an application for an auction of real estate rent with respect to the land in this case as Suwon District Court ****, and received a decision of commencement of auction on October 4, 1994 from the above court (hereinafter “instant auction”). In the auction of this case, BB filed a report of bid at the highest price of KRW 64.5 million, and the above court decided to grant a successful bid with respect to BB on December 1, 1994.

After that, BB completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the land of this case on March 6, 1995, which was after the payment was made. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 14017, Dec. 1, 1994>

5) Meanwhile, the receipt of KRW 100 million from May 4, 1994 in the name of DD, and KRW 400 million from May 15, 1994.

Now, on March 5, 1995, various receipts and agreements, including 265 million won receipts, have been made up.1)

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's 1 through 9, 11 through 14, 21, 26 through 30, 32 and 33,

each entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleading

D. Determination

1) The registration of real estate is valid even if the current state of true rights is publicly announced and the process or form leading to such public announcement is not reflected. As such, in acquiring real estate from the former owner, the former owner lawfully acquired the real estate for another reason without following the grounds for registration stated in the register, and asserts the form or process of the act of the reason for registration somewhat different from that of the act of the reason for registration, and it cannot be said that the presumption of registration is broken (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da40651, Sept. 29, 2005).

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged in the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff’s acquisition value of the instant land is KRW 64,50,000,000 paid for the award of the instant land in the instant auction, and thus, the instant disposition is lawful;

1) The Plaintiff submitted a 30 million won receipt in the name of DoD on January 11, 1995, but it is difficult to conclude it as the instant receipt because the recipient is MM.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

A) As to the instant land as of July 16, 1994, the registration of provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal in the name of FF FF, the Plaintiff’s birth, was completed on July 21, 1994; and the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the BB in the name of BB as of July 21, 1994; and

Then, on December 1, 1994, BB obtained the decision to grant the successful bid price of KRW 64.5 million in the auction procedure of this case, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on March 6, 1995 after payment of the price. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case in the name of BB through the auction of this case at KRW 64.5 million.

B) Although the sales contract of this case was made up between the Plaintiff’s ASEAN and DD, as of April 27, 1994, with the purchase price of KRW 765 million as of April 27, 1994, the sales contract of this case was set up. However, at the auction procedure conducted between South and North Korea for seven months, there was only a maximum amount of KRW 120 million in the name of AB bank and KRW 45 million in the title of BB, and there was only a maximum amount of KRW 40 million in the title of BB. If the market price of the land of this case reaches KRW 765 million, it would be difficult to believe that DD would have been 70 million in the form of additional loan to any other financial institution to prevent any voluntary auction procedure. However, if the Plaintiff actually paid the intermediate payment to the land of this case until May 194, 1994, it is difficult to say that the sale contract of this case was made under the title of 400 million in the name of B.

C) The Plaintiff asserted that on April 27, 1994, KRW 100 million, KRW 100 million, KRW 300 million on May 4, 1994, KRW 150 million on May 15, 1994, KRW 29 million on November 29, KRW 1994, KRW 30 million on January 11, 1995, KRW 215 million on March 5, 1995, and paid the remainder to the Plaintiff’s account under the sales contract. The Plaintiff submitted the account under the name of EE, Kim Jong-Un, and KRW 35 billion on that basis, but the said financial transaction cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff paid the remainder of KRW 305 billion on that basis, not on the grounds that it would be inconsistent with the concept of EE, EFF and the Plaintiff’s sales contract’s payment on that basis, and that it would not be consistent with the Plaintiff’s payment on that basis.

3. Conclusion

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