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

"A. The plaintiff was registered for transfer of ownership to the plaintiff under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (amended by Act No. 08080, Dec. 26, 2006) with respect to the pertinent land on June 12, 1995, as a community of residents of the village located inCC-si DDri in BB, the plaintiff was registered for transfer of ownership on June 12, 1995." (b) The plaintiff sold the instant real estate to the non-party GG industry development corporation on July 12, 2008, and registered for transfer of ownership on September 1 of the same year.

C. On November 30, 2008, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income amount calculated on June 12, 1995, which was the date of acquisition registration, to the Defendant on November 30, 2008.

D. The defendant on November 10, 2009, and the time when the plaintiff acquired the real estate of this case on November 10, 2009.

"12. 31. It is before December 22, 1994) under Article 8 (amended by Act No. 5031 of Dec. 29, 1995) of the Addenda of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5031 of Dec. 29, 1995) and calculated the transfer income amount on January 1, 1985, and issued a disposition to correct and notify the transfer income tax for 2008 as 273,025,170 won (hereinafter "the disposition in this case"). The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the disposition in this case and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 26, 2010, but the above claim was dismissed on June 23, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

In calculating the transfer income tax unless it is clearly proved that the liquidation date of the transfer price of the instant land was before December 31, 1984, the acquisition time of the instant real estate shall be deemed as June 12, 1995, which is the date of registration of ownership transfer pursuant to Article 162 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act"). However, the Defendant recognized the acquisition time of the said real estate on January 1, 1985 as the date of acquisition of the said real estate and disposed of the instant land in this case."

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. According to Article 98 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009) and Article 162 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, in calculating gains on transfer of assets, the time of acquisition shall be the date of liquidation of the price of the relevant assets, and if the date of settlement is unclear, the date of registration shall be the date of receipt recorded in the register. Meanwhile, according to Article 8 (amended by Act No. 5031 of Dec. 22, 1994) of the Addenda of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5031 of Dec. 29, 1995), the acquisition of land before December 31, 1984 shall be deemed to have been acquired on January 1, 1985.

B. Examining whether the Plaintiff acquired the instant land before December 31, 1984, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1, Eul evidence Nos. 9-2, Eul evidence No. 12-2, and Eul evidence No. 11-2, and considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of fact-finding on the Yangnam-Myeon Office of the court, EEA (it was a foundation EEA, but it was authorized to change it to a school juristic person EEI on March 17, 1964). Since it was difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land as basic property upon donation of the instant land on May 20, 1949 and owned it as a school juristic person on or around January 1, 1970, it was difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land as the basic property of this case with the list of fundamental property including the instant land attached to the superintendent of education on or around January 1, 1970, it was unlawful to recognize the Plaintiff’s name and address of the instant land.

C. Furthermore, on June 12, 1995, the date of receipt of ownership transfer registration of the instant land by Article 162 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act concerning the legitimate tax amount, is the time when the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate. Based on this, the calculation of transfer income tax is the same as the transfer income tax initially scheduled by the Plaintiff. Thus, the instant disposition is entirely unlawful.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.