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

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 00-00 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff owned the instant land and its neighboring 00-00 square meters on the ground of 1,014 square meters in five stories and housing buildings (1-5 square meters in 156.60 square meters in 156.60 square meters in 167.40 square meters in 167.62 square meters in 286.62 square meters in 286.72 square meters in 200 square meters in 20.70 square meters in 270 square meters in 270.4 square meters in 1995 in 195.

B. On December 28, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract to transfer the instant real estate to the Oconcenture Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Oconcenture”) KRW 1.750 million (land KRW 750 million + building KRW 1 billion) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Plaintiff on December 28, 2005, but the Plaintiff decided to succeed to the purchaser status pursuant to the instant sales contract, and the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate upon receiving the payment of the remaining purchase price of the instant real estate from △ up to January 31, 2007.

C. On January 31, 2007, when the Plaintiff filed a tax base return on capital gains from the transfer of the instant real estate, the transfer value is based on the actual transaction value, and the transfer value is a total of KRW 1.75 billion (750 million in the transfer value of the instant land + KRW 1 billion in the transfer value of 1/2 of the instant building) and the transfer value is a total of KRW 855,022,696 in the conversion value calculated based on the said transfer value.

D. However, on March 2, 2011, the Defendant: (a) calculated the value of the instant land and buildings according to the standard market price pursuant to Article 166(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, based on the Plaintiff’s total transfer value as the basis for calculating the amount of capital gains tax at the time of filing and paying the transfer income tax; (b) calculated the pro rata distribution of the value of the instant land and buildings according to the standard market price; and (c) revised and notified the transfer income tax of KRW 132,476,490 for the year 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 10 through 13, 18 (including each number), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Main argument

At the time of the sales contract for the instant real estate, the Plaintiff agreed to have the value of the instant building KRW 1.75 billion out of the total purchase price of the instant real estate as KRW 1.75 billion, and thereafter, even though the value of the instant building was divided into KRW 1.1 billion in the sales contract, the instant disposition was unlawful in cases where the distinction between the instant land and the building value is unclear.

(2) Preliminary assertion

In addition, even if the value assessed at the time of offering the instant land and its ground buildings as collateral around October 2006 near the date of the instant sales contract is KRW 1,103,923,296, and the building 446,980,564. Accordingly, the instant disposition that calculated transfer margin by calculating the transfer value of the Plaintiff’s share among the instant buildings as KRW 792,567,858 is unlawful even if the transfer value of the instant building among the instant buildings becomes KRW 448,506,488.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) As to the main argument

The following circumstances can be acknowledged by the above evidence, namely, ① the seal of approval signed by the parties to the transaction and affixed the seal of approval by the head of the Si/Gun, etc., are presumed to have been prepared in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2353, Apr. 9, 193). The each seal of approval submitted by △△ to the competent authority after purchasing the instant building from the Plaintiff and Park ParkA and submitting it to the competent authority is not indicated in the value of the instant building. ② Generally, in the event that the building is constructed to use the site of the building, the purchaser’s land to remove the building is not an important matter. In this case, if the value of the instant building (the Plaintiff’s share) is 1 billion won or more than the standard market price of the instant building, the △△ representative director would purchase the building at a price higher than 6 times or more than the standard market price of the instant building, and there is no reason to view that the Plaintiff’s assignment of the land and the building is unreasonable.

(2) As to the conjunctive assertion

In order for the acquisition value to be the amount corresponding to the appraised value prior to the standard market price, there must be an appraised value assessed by a certified public appraisal corporation under Article 100 (2) of the Income Tax Act, Article 166 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 48-2 (4) of the Value-Added Tax Act. Since the Plaintiff’s certificate No. 4-1 and No. 2 are not the appraised value under the above provision, but the said appraised value cannot be deemed the appraised value under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, since the said appraised value cannot be deemed the appraised value, the Plaintiff’s preliminary assertion is without merit

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, since the transfer of the real estate of this case constitutes a case where its value is unclear, the disposition of this case reported as such is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.