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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of the capital gains tax for the year 2012 imposed on the Plaintiff on July 1, 2013 by the Defendant is revoked.

A. From December 29, 1989 to November 24, 2001, the Plaintiff purchased OOM (this piece of land was subdivided into OdongOO again in 2006 after the following change was made once in 1997) on three occasions as shown in the following table, and thereafter, on October 15, 201, transferred the above land and buildings to BB Holdings Holdings Co., Ltd. in order to KRW 00,000.

B. On December 28, 2012, the Plaintiff calculated by applying the acquisition value of each of the above lands as the conversion price.

After reporting the OOO members of the capital gains tax, the sales contract for each land was submitted as stated in the evidentiary data column in the tax investigation process, and the actual contract amount was claimed as the acquisition value.

C. The Defendant deemed the Nos. 2 and 3 of the sales contract submitted by the Plaintiff as the actual contract and recognized the agreed amount as the actual transaction price. However, the sales contract No. 1 is the CCC that is not the Plaintiff under the contract, and since the subject matter of the sale is not the land acquired by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed as the evidentiary data on the actual acquisition price, it calculated the acquisition price of the land No. 1 as the conversion price as the OO for the reasons that the real acquisition price cannot be deemed as the OO-O land. On July 1, 2013, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax O0 (including additional tax) for the transfer income tax for the year 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) On September 26, 1989, the first Plaintiff, CCC, and DD 3 entered into a contract with EE to purchase O-O land of O00,000 won per square meter, and the contract is proved Gap 3. At the time, the Plaintiff et al. purchased the above O0-O land considering it as the planned site for the apartment complex, and thereafter, it was incorporated into an apartment building site which is not the planned site for the apartment complex. The contract was waived, and the Plaintiff and DD acquired the instant land of this case, which is the planned site for the settlement, from E-E to the price per unit area (O0,000 won per square meter) of the same unit area (O0,000 won per square meter). It is only registered because it was transferred to the same owner.

2) Therefore, even though the acquisition value of the land No. 1 in the above table should be calculated as KRW 000,000, the instant disposition was unlawful. Even if there is no evidence on the actual transaction value, the amount under the above contract entered into between EE and CCC ought to be applied as a transaction example amount. Furthermore, even if there is no evidence on the actual transaction value, the amount of the farmland diversion charge borne by the Plaintiff and the development charge KRW 00,000 should

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to the relevant statutes, where there is no book, sales contract, receipt, or other documentary evidence necessary to verify the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition, or where there is no material part thereof, the acquisition value may be determined by estimating and assessing transaction example amount, appraisal value, conversion value, or standard market value pursuant to Article 114(7) of the Income Tax Act. Here, where there is an example of sale of assets with the identity or similarity of the relevant assets within three months before and after the date of transfer or acquisition,

In light of the following, Gap evidence No. 3 submitted by the plaintiff is written contract between the land owner EE and CCC, and the subject matter of the contract is separate from the land of this case, and the ownership transfer registration was not made in the future of CCC according to the contract, the witnessO testified that the plaintiff and DDR were not aware of the acquisition of other land from EE after the contract was terminated between EE and CCC, and the plaintiff did not submit any materials to estimate the financial data or source of funds paid to the transferor, etc. of the land of this case. In light of the above, Gap evidence No. 3 cannot be recognized as evidence proving the actual transaction price of the land of this case acquired by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the actual transaction price of the land of this case as 00 won as evidence, and there is no other evidence to support the actual transaction price of the land of this case claimed by the plaintiff. Furthermore, although CCC did not have actually acquired the land of this case, even if CCC's personal information is not specified, the value of the above evidence No. 3 cannot be recognized as business example for the land

Therefore, there is no illegality in the measure that the Defendant applied the acquisition price of the instant land as the conversion price in accordance with the relevant statutes.

2) Next, according to the health-based provision and relevant statutes, if the acquisition value is recognized as the actual transaction value, the development charges and the farmland diversion charges may be deducted as necessary expenses. However, if deemed as the conversion value, only the so-called so-called ‘industrial deduction' under Article 163 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act can be deducted as necessary expenses.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant's above development charges acknowledged that the real value of the land Nos. 2 and 3, which was recognized as the actual transaction value, was already deducted from the necessary expenses, and there is no error in applying the conversion value to the land No. 1 as seen earlier. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that caused the error is groundless cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

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