2. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of lawsuit.

"The plaintiff acquired on December 14, 1983 00 00 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m2 (hereinafter "the building of this case") and the building of this case (hereinafter "the building of this case") acquired on June 3, 199, 251/480 m250 m250 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m3.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 16, 2012, but was dismissed on April 13, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] The facts not cornerd, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 4 (each evidence is included in the natural disaster Pos, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

In addition, the acquisition value of the instant building is determined by reflecting its value as it is located in the motherel located in the water supply protection area, and at the present time in the area where the telecom has no permission for restaurant, and the reasonable transfer value is determined in light of the officially announced land value. Moreover, the acquisition value of the instant two land is not unclear by the court’s decision based on the court’s decision. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition that deemed that the transfer value of the instant building was arbitrarily distributed without any grounds or that the acquisition value of the instant two land is unclear is illegal.

(b)a recognition;

(1) The certificate of completion of the additional trade contract for the land and building of this case contains the Plaintiff’s entry that the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the KB on September 22, 2009 (the date of this sales contract was entered as of September 22, 2009 in the real estate injury), and the sale price is written as of September 22, 200 without distinguishing the value of the land and building.

(2) The certificate of completion of report on real estate transactions with the Plaintiff on October 23, 2009 is written as follows: (a) the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff on October 23, 2009 (in the real estate registration injury, the date of conclusion of the sales contract is written as of October 23, 2009); and (b) the sales amount is written as 00 won.

(3) In the instant building, a person engaged in a telecoming business is the cherent II of the buyer’s peripheral BB, and in fact the instant sales contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the KO.

"(4) A sales contract ("the second sales contract") submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of preliminary return of capital gains tax stated that "the first sales contract was made in relation to the sale price of the land and building in question: 000 won: the second sales contract was made in the first place, and thereafter the second sales contract was made in the second sale contract was made in the second sale contract, and there was no difference between the land and building prices, while the second sales contract was made in the second sale contract, and there was no separate consultation on the separate entry of the price between the Plaintiff and the KOO because the second sale contract was made in the second sale contract which was written separately from the price of the land and building, the second sale contract was made in the second sale contract." (5) The original POP, the other than the Plaintiff, had no separate consultation on the entry of the price between the Plaintiff and the KOO in the second sale contract. The sale price of the land in this case was calculated by dividing the sale price of the land in this case (hereinafter "transfer lawsuit") into the total sale price of the land in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, evidence 1 to 3, evidence O of witnesses, fact inquiry results of this court's South-sea market, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 100 (2) (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009), Article 10 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 166 (4) proviso (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, where the land and buildings are transferred together with each other, and the transfer value is calculated based on the actual transaction price, and where the classification of the land and buildings is unclear, it shall be calculated in proportion to the value calculated according to the standard market price as of the date of the transfer contract, and where the classification of the value of the land and buildings is unclear, it shall not be deemed that the transfer price of the land and buildings is not the only case where the land and buildings are transferred without distinction, but it shall also be interpreted that the price of the land and buildings, etc. under the contract is clearly distinguishable from the real agreement between the parties, or it shall also be deemed that it includes cases where it cannot be deemed that there is a reasonable price classification other

(2) On the basis of this point, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged to be clear regarding the classification of the value of the land and the building in question, are as follows, (i) the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the KO to sell all the land in question, buildings and facilities, and business rights, and accordingly, it seems that the value of the land in question is divided into two separate sales contracts after the establishment of the first sales contract, and (ii) the KOO prepared two separate sales contracts with the Plaintiff at the time of the preparation of the second sales contract, and there is no prior consultation on the classification of the land and the building price at the request of the Plaintiff, and the KOO prepared two separate sales contracts in response thereto (in addition to the classification of the value, it is not deemed that the first sales contract and the building price are substantially different from the acquisition price of the building in question), and (iii) the transfer price of the building in question is 00 won without distinction between the value of the land and the building in question and the real value of the building in question.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.