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

A. On September 8, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired a total of 3 lots of building (hereinafter referred to as “the entire real estate of this case,” and when indicating individual land, it shall be the lot number, and when indicating individual land, it shall be the area when displaying individual building) with respect to the above 00-1, 00-6 parcel of land and the above 3 lots of building (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”). On July 17, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the above 00-1, 00-6 parcel of land and the above 3 lots of building (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”).

B. On September 30, 2009, the Plaintiff reported the transfer value of the instant real estate to the Defendant at 4 billion won, and attached a written contract dated June 26, 2009 (the content of the transfer of the instant real estate to 4 billion won) concluded between the instant union and the instant union.

C. In addition to the above contract, the Defendant: (a) obtained a contract in which the date of preparation, (b) the public column of the date of sale, (c) seven billion won of the instant real estate (the single building is marked with 134.41 square meters) and the remaining real estate (the site of 00-3, 000-5, 002-5, 003-3), and a contract in which the amount of ten billion won of the entire real estate (the site of this case is omitted) of this case on March 24, 2008; and (b) obtained a contract in which ten billion won of the entire real estate of this case (the site of this case is omitted, 04-5) on November 2, 201, and imposed KRW 00 of the transfer income tax for the Plaintiff in 2009 (hereinafter the instant disposition).

【Facts without dispute over recognition, Gap 1, 2, 6, Eul 3-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On March 24, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to sell the entire real estate of this case to the instant association 10 billion won. On October 23, 2008, the instant association paid a down payment of 400 million won to the Plaintiff, and paid the intermediate payment of 6.6 billion won on July 17, 2009, demanded that only the ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate be made. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, trusting that the Plaintiff would pay the remainder of 3 billion won, and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate, 4 billion won out of the 7 billion won that the Plaintiff received at that time, was the transfer value of the instant real estate, and the payment of the remainder of 6 billion won to the down payment and the intermediate payment for the real estate. Accordingly, the instant association did not enter into a sales contract on June 26, 2009, which was submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of reporting the transfer income tax.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not believe the sales contract as of June 26, 2009, and did not regard the transfer value of the instant real estate as 7 billion won and disposed of the instant disposition. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are acknowledged in light of the above evidence and evidence No. 7-1 to No. 3, No. 1, No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5.

1) On March 24, 2008, the instant association entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to purchase the entire instant real estate at KRW 10 billion by calculating approximately KRW 100 million per land flat on March 24, 2008, and accordingly, entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on March 24, 2008 (Provided, That the same is omitted in the contract, provided that the site of 004-5 is omitted).

2) On October 23, 2008, LB, the representative of the instant association, proposed to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay 400 million won to the Plaintiff on October 23, 2008, and that on July 17, 2009, the Plaintiff would transfer to the Plaintiff a part of the land within seven billion won. If such, the remainder of the remaining 3 billion won would be paid between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, thereby paying 6.6 billion won to the Plaintiff on the same day, and received the registration of ownership transfer from the Plaintiff.

3) On the same day, LB newly prepared a contract in which the entire instant real estate was divided into 04-6 site, 002-1 site, 134.41 square meters of the above ground building in 7 billion won, and 008-3 site, 008-5 site, 002-5 site, 002-5 site, and 003-3 site in 3 billion won and delivered it to the Plaintiff.

4) Accordingly, if the Plaintiff did not file a preliminary return on capital gains tax for the real estate the ownership of which has been transferred to the largestB within three months, additional charges should be imposed. If the Plaintiff did not know within the reporting period of capital gains tax, how would it be possible, and the largestB reported capital gains tax on the real estate the registration of which has been transferred to the Plaintiff, and the sales contract dated June 26, 2009, prepared with a false statement as if the real estate was sold to the largestB in four billion won.

5) On September 30, 2009, the Plaintiff was charged with the following facts: (a) around 00 tax office located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 00,000, and (b) on November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a false report of transfer income tax when filing a transfer income tax return with the instant association at KRW 4 billion; and (c) on June 26, 2009, when the transfer value was reduced to 4 billion won as supporting documents, submitted one copy of the sales contract on June 26, 2009; and (d) by fraud or other unlawful means, the Plaintiff asserted the same as the instant lawsuit, but the Plaintiff was convicted on November 29, 2013 (Seoul Central District Court 2012Gohap00). The judgment became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court on January 29, 2015.

C. Determination

① Unless a criminal judgment has become final and conclusive in the administrative litigation, it cannot be recognized that it is difficult to accept the factual determination of the above criminal judgment (Supreme Court Decision 98Du10424, Nov. 26, 199). While the Plaintiff had the same assertion as the instant lawsuit during the criminal trial process, the judgment of conviction has become final and conclusive, the Plaintiff already decided to transfer the entire real estate of this case to the instant association about 10 billion won, and there is no reason to first transfer the instant real estate equivalent to approximately 65% of the entire real estate of this case at a price of only 4 billion won on the ground that it is difficult for the association to furnish financial resources, and ③ the Plaintiff asserted that the transfer value of the instant real estate of this case was 4 billion won and the remaining 3 billion won received by the Plaintiff was down payment and intermediate payment for the remainder of the entire real estate of this case except for the instant real estate of this case. However, considering the fact that the remaining real estate sales contract was not prepared, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to the association.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful on the same premise.

3. Conclusion

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