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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On November 17, 1978, KimB, and the plaintiff completed registration of initial ownership by designating the above three persons as joint owners with regard to 2 ○○○○-ri 3 forest land in ○○○-ri 4 forest land, 5 m3 mal 5 mal 6 m 5 m m 5 m 6 m m 5 m em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em em e.).

C. On July 6, 2011, the Defendant: (a) deemed the time when the Plaintiff acquired shares in KimB and KimA from the instant real estate as at the time of the death of the said joint investors; and (b) converted the acquisition value of the instant real estate to KRW 000 (i.e., the appraised value at the time of the death of KimB + KRW 0000 + the appraised value at the time of the death of KimA + KRW 0000 at the time of the death of the Plaintiff’s share + KRW 0000 at the time of the acquisition of the Plaintiff’s share; and (c) issued the instant disposition that corrected and notified the transfer income

D. On September 7, 2011, the Plaintiff filed for an inquiry with the National Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on December 6, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1, 4 evidence, Eul 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the acquisition value of the instant real estate ought to be calculated on the basis of the actual amount paid by the Plaintiff in the course of the litigation of claim for settlement of accounts filed by KimB and KimA against the Plaintiff, the instant disposition based on the premise that the amount assessed at the time of death of KimB and KimA is unlawful.

Even as the Defendant asserts, the amount that the Plaintiff paid to the heir of KimB and KimA shall be deducted from the gains on transfer, as expenses incurred in securing ownership. Of the instant real estate, 1/3 of the Plaintiff’s share and 1/6 of the shares acquired due to KimB’s death shall have been possessed for at least 20 years, and the special deduction for long-term holding should be applied.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) Progress of the relevant lawsuit

① On May 8, 2006, the Plaintiff asserted that the heir of the KimB and KimA had a duty to complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the shares of the instant real estate, and that on September 29, 2005, the heir of the KimB and KimA filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on May 8, 2006 against the Plaintiff, seeking the registration of ownership transfer in accordance with the liquidation procedures of the union, and that the Defendant had a duty to settle the relationship with respect to the shares of the instant real estate in cash as of September 29, 2005, which provided that the Plaintiff had an intention to resolve the relationship with respect to the shares

② On July 10, 2008, the court of the first instance ruled that the primary claim of the above inheritors is dismissed, and that the heir would pay the amount equivalent to the share of KimB and KimCC on the basis of the market price of the instant real estate at the time of KimB and KimCC’s death. The ground for this determination is that the heir of the deceased co-owner does not succeed to the status of the co-owner, unless otherwise specifically agreed by the co-owner if a part of the co-owner of the real estate dies, and that the real estate is owned by the remaining co-owner if there are more than one co-owner, and if there are only one co-owner, the remaining co-owner will belong to the sole ownership of the remaining co-owner, and on the other hand, in calculating the amount due to withdrawal between the withdrawing and the remaining co-owner, the amount equivalent to the shares of the withdrawing co-ownership at the time of withdrawal pursuant to Article 719(1) and (2) of the Civil Act should be returned in money, barring special circumstances.

③ On July 31, 2008, the successors of KimB and KimA filed an appeal with Seoul High Court 2008Na69567 against the above judgment of the first instance court on July 31, 2008, and on June 26, 2009, a voluntary conciliation was established with the content that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 00 million to the successors of KimB until July 31, 2009, and that KRW 00 million should be paid to the successors of KimB.

④ The Plaintiff paid the total sum of KRW 520,000,000,000 as stipulated in the above voluntary adjustment.

2) The market price of the instant real estate revealed through the market price appraisal in the said lawsuit is KRW 000 as of December 16, 1984, which was the time of death of KimB, and KRW 000 as of January 26, 1995, which was the time of death of KimB.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, the entries in evidence A1, 2, and 3 (if available, including each number), and the purport of the entire pleading

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The timing and value of acquiring shares of KimB and KimA among the instant real property

The transfer margin of real estate under the Income Tax Act shall be deducted from the transfer value, and the transfer value and acquisition value shall be based on the actual transaction value.

"On the other hand, since a part of the real estate is deceased, the heir does not succeed to the status as a partner, the real estate in question belongs to the co-ownership of the remaining co-ownership if there are two or more remaining co-owners (Supreme Court Decision 93Da39225 delivered on February 25, 1994). In addition, in calculating the market value of the real estate in question between the withdrawing and the remaining co-ownership of the real estate, it is reasonable to return the amount equivalent to the shares of the withdrawing co-ownership of the real estate in accordance with Article 719(1) and (2) of the Civil Act, unless there are special circumstances, at the time of the withdrawal from the partnership, based on the market value of the remaining co-ownership, and it is reasonable to directly calculate the share of the deceased co-ownership of the real estate in question based on the legal nature of the Plaintiff co-ownership of the real estate in question (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da49693, 49709 delivered on March 9, 2006).

(2) Costs for securing ownership due to litigation after the acquisition of ownership

According to Article 97 (1) 2 of the Income Tax Act, and Article 163 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in cases where litigation is instituted after acquiring transferred assets, "the amount of the cost of lawsuit, reconciliation cost, etc. directly required to secure ownership, excluding those included in the necessary expenses in calculating the income amount of the year the payment was made," is required to be deducted from the transfer value as the capital expenditure among necessary expenses when calculating gains on transfer.

Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged as above, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate by transferring the shares of KimB and KimA, and thereafter, KimB and KimA filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking to pay the Plaintiff the settlement amount as of September 29, 2005, when the Plaintiff independently completed the registration of ownership transfer, and the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for registration of transfer in order to resolve the legal dispute over the instant real estate and secure its ownership, and KRW 00 million paid by the Plaintiff to the inheritors of KimB and KimA following the conciliation. In full view of the above circumstances, the lower court should deem that the Plaintiff’s claim for registration of transfer of the instant real estate and the remaining claims for settlement, and as a consideration for not giving up, and giving up, the remainder of the claims for registration of transfer and settlement of the instant real estate, were reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s direct settlement costs incurred by acquiring the instant real estate after acquiring the ownership of the instant real estate.

Therefore, in calculating the transfer income tax for the year 2009 against the plaintiff, the defendant did not recognize the total amount of KRW 00 million paid with settlement costs as capital expenditures for the real estate of this case, which was recognized as necessary expenses and deducted from the transfer value, and therefore, the disposition of this case was unlawful.

(iii) application of special deduction for long-term possession;

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, although the defendant applied the special deduction for long-term possession in the disposition of this case, he denies its application in this case, and the real estate of this case is classified as forest land, and its category excluded from the special deduction for long-term possession pursuant to Articles 95 (2) and 104-3 (1) 2 of the Income Tax Act, and Article 104-3 (2) of the Income Tax Act, Article 168-14 (3) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 168-14 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 168-14 (3) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall not be deemed as forest land for long-term possession until December 31, 2006, and it constitutes special deduction for long-term possession until December 31, 2006.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case by the plaintiff is justified.