2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-third of the costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant, respectively.

A. On July 26, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired 00 households of multi-household 000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant house”) from OO-dong 000 in Ansan-si, the Plaintiff transferred the housing rental business to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on November 11, 2009, by applying the transfer price of 000 won on December 30, 2009, the acquisition price of 00 won, and the necessary cost of 00% reduction and exemption of capital gains tax on long-term rental houses (the special rural development tax was reported without filing a return), and paid it after filing a return on September 16, 201, along with a request for correction to include 00 won in the necessary expenses of the instant house.

B. On January 3, 2011, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the special rural income tax (including additional tax of KRW 000) on the reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax reverted to year 2009, by denying the acquisition cost of KRW 000 on the machinery as necessary expenses, and denying the necessary expenses of KRW 000 upon filing a global income tax return on the rental income of the instant housing.

C. The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the construction cost and capital expenditure of the instant housing were spent under the following timing and name, the amount should be considered as necessary expenses, and the imposition of KRW 000 of the additional tax on negligent tax returns among additional taxes is unjust.

(b) Relevant statutes: To be listed in attached Form;

C. Determination of necessary expenses assertion

(i) Urban gas input costs, and secondary boiler replacement costs, and structural modifications (the first sequence 1, 3, and 5);

(A) Facts of recognition

The name of the instant house was “CC house operation” and the Plaintiff’s former owner had been used as a rental house after the approval for use was made on or around July 26, 1994 after the date of the unification of the 1CC house operation and Nadong, the owner of the instant house adjacent to the old TPP. The Plaintiff purchased the instant house from the old TPP on or around July 26, 1996. At the time of the construction of the instant house, the heating fuel was LPG gas at the time of the alteration into urban gas, the Plaintiff paid KRW 00 to the Do pipe construction for urban gas business and the pipeline construction cost around 200 (the instant house was supplied for the first time on November 20, 200, and the boiler was replaced from each of the instant housing construction projects to the 00th 20th 20th 20 of the total building construction cost, each of which was changed to the 30th 20th 20th 20 of the 20th 201.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 5 (including each number), and parts of Gap evidence 7, 8, and 9, and the testimony of the witness video, and the whole purport of the pleading

(B) According to the above facts, the plaintiff paid 00 won of urban gas input cost, 000 won of urban gas input cost, and 000 won of structural change cost, and 000 won of structural change cost, and each of the above costs constitutes capital expenditure disbursed to improve the housing of this case or to facilitate the use of the housing of this case, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is with merit.

(2) Each of the above costs claimed by the Plaintiff is capital expenses to improve the housing of this case, which are favorable to the Plaintiff in calculating the transfer income tax, and its basic facts are in the area of the Plaintiff’s control, and it is difficult for the tax authorities to investigate the facts, while it is difficult for the Plaintiff to prove, and such necessary expenses are consistent with the principle of public punishment to interpret that the Plaintiff bears the burden of proof. However, some of the entries in subparagraphs 7 and 8 and 9, and witnessF testimonys, and witnessFs testimonys from the above request for correction on the timing and amount of each of the above costs, from the above request for correction to the litigation of this case, from the above time of the lawsuit of this case, the Plaintiff did not go through the above construction to the litigation of this case, and there was no transaction evidence, such as a contract or tax invoice, and there was no other evidence that the above amount has been paid, and there is no reason to acknowledge any other evidence that the Plaintiff did not have any other evidence to prove the above change of the cost or material.

(3) Sub-decisions

When calculating a legitimate special rural development tax by including 000 won, which was recognized as necessary expenses by the Plaintiff, as necessary expenses, and when calculating the special rural development tax, the special rural development tax exceeding 00 won including additional tax from the disposition of this case is illegal.

D. Determination on the assertion related to additional tax

On September 16, 2010, when the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return of capital gains tax on December 30, 2009 and filed a return after the due date of the special rural development tax on September 16, 2010, which was later, after which the Plaintiff did not report the special rural development tax, does not meet the requirements for “A” of penalty tax as provided in Article 48 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. In addition, when a taxpayer fails to file a tax base return by the due date of return under Article 1147-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an amount equivalent to 20/100 of the calculated tax amount under tax law is added to the payable tax amount or deducted from the refundable tax amount. Therefore, it is legitimate for the Defendant to impose penalty tax on the whole of the abated or exempted tax amount (However, as seen earlier, as the calculated tax amount of capital gains tax was reduced as the necessary expense was additionally recognized, the reduction or exemption of the calculated tax amount of capital gains tax was reduced, and accordingly the penalty tax on the special rural development tax has been reduced from the existing tax amount to 0000 won).

3. Conclusion

The disposition in this case shall be revoked in excess of KRW 3,265,530, and the plaintiff's claims shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the plaintiff's remaining claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit.