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

A. On February 15, 200, the Plaintiff is a religious organization that was established on the land category change and 985 square meters in the remaining 985 square meters on the religious land of the same 000 square meters per annum 1.652 square meters per annum (200 square meters per annum on February 29, 2000, and the same 00 square meters per annum on August 8, 2006. The Plaintiff is a religious organization that was established on the land category change and 200 square meters per annum (hereinafter “the entire land”).

B. On October 11, 200, the Plaintiff received the donation of the instant land from the wife of ChoOOO and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 28, 2006 on the buildings listed in the separate sheet constructed on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”).

(C) During the process of the construction of a charnel house (AAB) on the instant land for the purpose of the sale of charnel houses, the Plaintiff again concluded 10 won for the 20th anniversary of the acquisition price for the instant land and 20 won for the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”). The Plaintiff did not pay 00 won for the instant land and 20 won for the acquisition of 00 won for the instant land and 200 won for the acquisition price for the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”), and received 00 won for the instant land for the 20th anniversary of the acquisition price for the instant land, and later completed the registration of ownership transfer for the BB bridge on August 16, 2006. The Plaintiff did not pay 00 won for the instant real estate, including the acquisition price for 00 won for the instant land and the additional construction cost for 00 won for the instant land.

E. On June 21, 201, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 21, 201, and dismissed on February 7, 2012.

[Identification Evidence] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, and 32 evidence 1, 8, and 9 evidence (if any, including each number, 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 following items must be included in deductible expenses in calculating the corporate tax base for the plaintiff in 2006, and the prior disposition of this case on different premise must be revoked in an unlawful manner.

1) The Plaintiff is an organization in which it is difficult for the UCC to take over the property rights and business rights of OOOOO from NAB, including the instant land and buildings, from 000 won, and is entirely separate from FF type AAAAA company. The above transfer contract is substantially a real estate sales contract for the Plaintiff to purchase the instant land from FF type AA company, and the above transfer price shall be included in deductible expenses, considering the acquisition value of the instant real estate paid by the Plaintiff as the acquisition value of the instant real estate.

2) The Plaintiff agreed to provide 00 won and 200 charnel facilities on the condition that the construction does not interfere with the progress of the instant construction project with the GabO of neighboring residents, and the amount equivalent to the above agreed amount of KRW 000 and charnel 200 shall also be deemed as the acquisition value of the instant land and shall be included in the calculation of losses.

3) The Plaintiff spent 000 won in total as litigation costs against the BB school in the course of the instant lawsuit against the BB school, and the above amount should also be included in the calculation of losses.

4) The Plaintiff, who was originally responsible for the instant construction (hereinafter referred to as “DD construction”), was performing construction works directly on the wind that it ceased to do so, and disbursed KRW 000 as expenses, and the said amount should also be included in deductible expenses.

5) Other obligations for the construction cost for Do design water, the construction cost obligations for 000 won for Korean OO stone, and the construction cost obligations for DoD Construction, plus 000 won for DoD Construction, have been paid for construction cost, and the above amount shall also be included in the calculation of losses.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Facts finding (A) as to the assertion of deductible expenses of KRW 2.2 billion for the transfer price under the instant transfer or acquisition contract

(1) On May 1, 1998, the new EE purchased the instant land and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 21, 1998, and its husband’s husband’s co-B, after constructing the instant building on the instant land, the new EE established a FF-Fcheon AAAAA company on February 15, 200 and obtained approval from the Defendant as an organization deemed a legal entity under the Framework Act on National Taxes (00).

(2) On April 15, 2003, UCC entered into a contract with FF-Class AAAA company's property rights and business rights, including the land and buildings in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "transfer or acquisition contract in this case") with the effect that it entered into the contract in "transfer or acquisition of property rights and rights of representation in the first head of the contract", and the contents of Articles 3 and 6 of the contract are as follows. The name of the UCC is indicated as the buyer, the name of the UCC is affixed to the last part of the contract, and the name of the PCC is indicated as the buyer, and the name of the PCC company is indicated as the buyer, and the name of the PCC company is affixed to the next part, and the signature and seal of the PCC company is affixed to the PCC company's representative and representative of the PCC company, and the operation right of the PCC company's representative and representative of the PCC company will be registered as the PCC company's representative and representative of the PCC company.

(3) After that, on April 24, 2003, the UCC was registered as a joint representative of the FF Type AA, and until August 21, 2006, paid KRW 000,000, out of the transfer price to CB.

(4) On May 23, 2003, the FF Species AA was amended on May 23, 2003 by amending its name to the GGYY AA on May 27, 2003. Around May 27, 2003, the FGGM changed its name to the GGG type to the GGG type, and the KO resigned resigned from the co-representative of the GGGM MUY on May 31, 2004. After that, on June 16, 2005, the GGM AA changed its name to the Plaintiff.

(5) On the other hand, on March 2, 2004, GGY AA reported the commencement of profit-making business to the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 9, and the whole purport of the pleading

(B) Determination

Article 13 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830, Dec. 31, 2007) provides that, as alleged by the Plaintiff, FAF-type company and FAB-type company are separate entities, and the transfer and acquisition of the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and FAB-type company and the Plaintiff constitutes a sales contract between FAB-type company and the Plaintiff, and that, if an unincorporated association, foundation, or other entity satisfies certain requirements, it shall be deemed as a corporation under tax law and obtain approval from the head of the relevant tax office, the transfer and acquisition of the instant real estate shall be deemed as its owner, and that there is no change in its name or title, including the transfer and acquisition of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff on February 15, 200, the change in the title and title of the FA-type company, including the Plaintiff’s new acquisition and acquisition of the instant real estate, and that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to regard the transfer and acquisition of the instant real estate as a corporation.

2) According to the argument that the amount of 000 won and charnel 200 won should be included in the deductible expenses, and the statement in evidence Nos. 8 through 14 about July 13, 2005, the plaintiff prepared a letter of commitment with the content that the plaintiff resided in the vicinity of a charnel facility and filed a civil petition against the establishment of a charnel house in the vicinity of the charnel facility on July 13, 2005, and made a civil petition for the objection to the establishment of a charnel house at the rate of 000 won and 200 won with the agreed amount, and the defendant can not accept the plaintiff's claim for provisional attachment as of Nov. 30, 2004 and the provisional attachment as of Jul. 13, 2005 and Aug. 18, 2006.

3) As to the assertion of inclusion of litigation costs in deductible expenses

The facts of the Plaintiff’s proceeding against BB school in the process of filing a lawsuit for cancellation of ownership transfer registration related to the instant real estate are as seen earlier, and according to the overall purport of the entries and arguments as stated in the evidence Nos. 15 through 22, the Plaintiff, in addition to the above lawsuit, has spent KRW 000 for litigation costs as described in [Attachment 2] between December 3, 2008 and November 24, 2010. However, the above costs are spent in the process of litigation, such as seeking cancellation of ownership transfer registration or seeking payment of purchase price, on the ground that the Plaintiff was not paid the remainder after the sale of the instant real estate to BB school, by nature, on the ground that the Plaintiff was spent in the process of filing a lawsuit, such as seeking cancellation of ownership transfer registration or seeking payment of purchase price, and since all of the above costs were paid after 2008, it is difficult to view that they can be included in deductible expenses for the business year 2006. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

4) As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of inclusion of directly constructed expenses in deductible expenses

From May 8, 2006 to August 17, 2006, the plaintiff is able to recognize that the plaintiff paid 15,084,230 won in total through the corporate bank account as shown below between May 8, 2006 and August 17, 2006. However, according to the evidence Nos. 29 and 3, and 4, according to the DoD Construction, which had been carrying out the construction work in this case, the plaintiff paid 31% of the construction work progress rate, while borrowing a comprehensive construction business license from OO Construction Co.,, Ltd., and the plaintiff incurred 00 won in the construction work, and the plaintiff can recognize that the additional construction expense between BBBHO and O was agreed to be KRW 00,000, and the defendant had already included the additional construction expense in the deductible expenses, and the above part of the expenses should also be included in the deductible expenses, as the defendant had already asserted that the additional construction expense was already included in the deductible expenses.

5) As to the assertion of the deductible expenses industry for charnel additional construction payments

The plaintiff asserts that the construction cost liability for the design value paid by the plaintiff, the construction cost liability of 00 won for Korean OO stones, and the construction cost liability of 000 won for DD Construction should also be included in deductible expenses, but the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the above argument by the plaintiff, and this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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