The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 8-1, 2, and 4-1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, and there are no counter-proofs.

A. On April 17, 1987, the plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with the non-party ○○○ City, a project implementer, to purchase 1,302.7 square meters in the land secured by the development recompense for development outlay 1,302.7 square meters in the land readjustment project district of ○○○○ City, which was implemented by the project implementer, with the non-party ○○ City and the non-party ○○ City, and paid the price by June 13, 1987.

B. On May 24, 198, the notice of a replotting disposition for the said land readjustment project zone was issued, and the land number purchased by the plaintiffs was set at 457 m3, 00,000,000,000, and the land size was 1,308.9m2m2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

C. On March 22, 1990, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each one-half portion of the land that became final and conclusive (hereinafter “instant land”). On December 8, 1995, the Plaintiffs transferred the said land to another person.

D. After calculating the acquisition value based on the standard market price on November 28, 1988, the date of acquisition of the land of this case was the date of payment for the increased area, the Plaintiffs calculated the acquisition value based on the standard market price, and paid KRW 122,728,411, respectively, as capital gains tax.

E. The defendants calculated the acquisition price of the land of this case on June 13, 1987, which was the date of the original contract price settlement, and the remaining increased area on November 28, 198, which was the date of the payment shall be deemed to be November 28, 198. The defendants calculated the acquisition price, calculated the tax amount, and then determined the tax amount to be paid additionally by deducting the above voluntarily paid tax amount from the tax amount, as 41,582,020 won, respectively, and on December 16, 1996, the director of the tax office, the director of the tax office, on January 16, 1997, imposed and notified the above tax amount on the plaintiff ○ on the plaintiff 1 of this case (hereinafter the disposition of this case) by the head of the tax office, respectively (hereinafter the disposition of this case).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The Defendants asserted that the instant disposition is lawful as it is in accordance with the relevant statutes.

Article 53 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994) states that the disposition of this case is unlawful when the defendant takes the time of acquisition of the land of this case on Nov. 28, 198, which is obviously the date of liquidation of the land price of this case, or that the plaintiffs transfer or acquire assets the completion or confirmation of which is not confirmed under Article 53 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the above land purchase contract of this case, as the time of acquisition of the above land of this case on May 24, 198, which is the date of the public announcement of disposition of replotting disposition corresponding to the "the date of completion or confirmation of the object".

(1) Income tax law

Article 27 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994) provides that "the time of acquisition and time of transfer shall be determined by the Presidential Decree in calculating gains from transfer of assets", and Article 53 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994) provides that "the time of acquisition and time of transfer provided for in Article 27 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994) shall be the date of liquidation of the price of the assets except in cases where the payment date is unclear or the price of the assets is not completed or finalized, and Article 53 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "the date of completion or confirmation of the object shall be the date of acquisition or acquisition" if the object is not completed or finalized by the date of liquidation of the price of the assets.

Article 54 (1) of the Land Readjustment Projects Act provides that the developer may use or benefit from the land or dispose of it in order to meet the expenses for the compartmentalization and rearrangement project or for the purpose of the regulations, articles of incorporation, implementation rules, or business plan, without designating a certain land as a substitute land in the land substitution plan. Article 57 (4) of the same Act provides that the developer may use or benefit from the land as a substitute land or dispose of it in order to meet the expenses for the compartmentalization and rearrangement project. Article 62 (6) of the same Act provides that the developer shall newly acquire the ownership of the land as of the day following the date of the public notice of the land substitution plan; Article 54 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Readjustment Projects Act provides that the developer shall make new entry of the land by the person stipulated in the land substitution plan as the developer; Article 45 of the same Act provides that the developer shall keep the existing regulations, the implementation rules, the land substitution plan, or other documents or drawings prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 57 (2) of the same Act provides that the developer shall report the right to the land within the zone or zone concerned.

"The actual transfer of assets is to be made at price due to sale, exchange, investment in kind in corporation, etc., regardless of the registration or enrollment of the assets subject to the transfer income tax" (Article 88 (1) of the Income Tax Act), and Article 53 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Article 53 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act) provides that the time of acquisition and time of transfer of the assets shall be the date of settlement of price in principle is due to the fact that the purchaser can dispose of the assets even before the purchaser completes the registration, etc. in case of settlement of price."

The buyer shall not sublease or transfer his ownership without the approval of the seller until his ownership is transferred (Article 5).

A seller shall transfer the land ownership to a buyer after the completion of a land readjustment project. Even if the increase or decrease in the size of the land caused by a final survey under the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act for the land so indicated, the buyer shall not raise an objection, such as cargo, etc.: Provided, That when the seller deems it necessary to liquidate the increased or decreased area, the seller shall liquidate it at the price at the time of

The buyer bears all public charges imposed on the land after the date of conclusion of the contract, and the seller shall not be liable for it (Article 11), and there is no counter-proof. In general, in light of the relevant provisions of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Project Act, in the case where the land rearrangement and rearrangement project executor designates the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay before the disposition of replotting is taken, and disposes of it to a third party, if the purchaser satisfies any of the requirements in the transfer of the land or the register of the authorities in recompense for development outlay, the purchaser shall acquire the right to use and profit from the real right of the land, but the right to use and profit from the real right is granted to the purchaser before the disposition of replotting is publicly announced (Supreme Court Decision 94Da31280 delivered on February 23, 196). The transfer of the land is made by the buyer at the time of the initial announcement of registration in the register of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development purposes.

In addition, in light of the fact that although the size of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay increases after 6.2m2m2 above than the original contract, even if the increase or decrease in the size is caused as above, the buyer cannot raise an objection, and in view of the fact that the seller is liquidated at the price at the time of the sales contract when it is recognized that there is a need to liquidate the increased or decreased size of the land, it cannot be viewed as "transfer or acquisition of an asset which is not completed or confirmed under Article 53 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act", the time of acquisition of the land in this case shall, in principle, be deemed as June 13, 1987, which is the day on which the price of the original contract area was paid. However, the disposition in this case by the Defendants in view of such increase in size is legitimate, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is unlawful, and it is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition.

June 9, 1998