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

The defendant of the Young-gu Office shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 000 and the amount of KRW 000 from July 28, 2010 to KRW 200,000 per annum from October 31, 2010 to KRW 30,000, the amount of KRW 5% per annum from November 30, 2010 to the date on which the copy of each complaint of this case is served, and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the following day to the date on which the copy of each complaint of this case is served.

A. The Plaintiff is a person holding 00 and 00 units of housing among the 00 units of building located in Seoul 00-Gu 00-dong 150 (hereinafter referred to as "one house in this case") and 00 and 000 units of housing (hereinafter referred to as "second unit of housing in this case"). The above unit of housing reconstruction improvement project was conducted by 00 units of housing reconstruction and improvement project (hereinafter referred to as "the association in this case") and the management and disposal plan was completed on October 0, 2006. (b) The Plaintiff was entitled to the allocation of only 10,00 new apartment units in accordance with Article 48 (2) 6 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and the articles of association. However, with respect to the payment of the purchase price of new apartment unit of 1,000,000 won, the Plaintiff treated the shares of the above unit of housing in the right to the housing in this case and paid the remainder of the purchase price of 2 million won.

C. On October 0, 2010, the head of the tax office under the Defendant-affiliated tax office deemed that the Plaintiff transferred the instant two houses to the instant association on October 0, 2006, and determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 0000 of the transfer income tax for the year 2006. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 000,000 to the Plaintiff on October 0, 2010, KRW 0000,000,000 on October 0, 2010, KRW 000,000,000 on October 0, 2010, respectively.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), 8, 9, Eul's 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is subject to the “land substitution disposition” under Article 88(2) of the Income Tax Act and Article 152 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act to make an investment in kind in the instant association and purchase new apartment units from the said association, and the Plaintiff did not receive the land substitution settlement money. It is illegal and unjust to impose tax by treating it as the “transfer” and thus null and void. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to return to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the capital gains tax for unjust enrichment without any legal cause.

A. In order for a taxation disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition must be insufficient to establish an objective and clear, and the defect must be objectively and objectively in violation of laws and regulations, and in determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations that form the basis for the pertinent taxation should be examined as a objectiveological and, at the same time, reasonable consideration should be made on the specificity of the specific case itself. For example, a taxation disposition made to a person who does not have any legal relations or factual relations subject to taxation should be deemed to be serious and obvious, but if objective circumstances exist that make it possible to believe that it is subject to taxation as a matter of course, it cannot be deemed that the above taxation disposition under the law, which misleads the fact of taxation, should not be deemed to be null and void, even if it is serious and apparent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da38400, Oct. 0, 201).

(1) "Transfer" in Article 4 (1) 3 and this Chapter means that any assets are actually transferred for price due to sale, exchange, investment in kind in a corporation, etc., regardless of any registration or enrollment concerning such assets. In such cases, where a donee takes over any obligation of a donor of an onerous donation (excluding cases falling under the main sentence of Article 47 (3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act), the portion equivalent to the amount of such obligation in the donation amount shall be deemed the actual transfer for price of such assets.

1. Where the land category or lot number is changed due to a disposition of replotting under the Urban Development Act or other Acts, or appropriated for the reserved land;

2. In cases of the exchange of land according to methods and procedures prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as land partitioning under the Act on Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records to change the boundary of land;

(1) Transfer income shall be the following incomes generated in the relevant year:

2. Income accruing from transfer of any right to the real estate falling under any of the following items:

(a) Right to acquire real estate (including the right to acquire a building and its appurtenant land when the construction of the building is completed): < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890, Feb. 28, 2007>

(1) "Land substitution disposition" in Article 88 (2) of the Act means an urban development project under the Urban Development Act, an agricultural infrastructure improvement project under the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, or a project implementer's alteration of land within the project zone into another land instead of the previous land (including the division, merger, or exchange according to the project implementation) after completion of the project. It is unlawful that the ownership of a house belongs to an association, and the ownership of the right is paid as the sale price of a new apartment as the sale price without regard to the ownership of the house of this case as a "land substitution". The definition of transfer and replotting disposition in the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Act are examined as follows. Whether the disposal of the two houses of this case is deemed a land substitution, which comes into the issue of how to interpret and apply the Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, and specifically, the land substitution-related regulation for the land of this case may be expanded to a building or applied by analogy after completion of the project. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, it can not be seen that the above disposition of taxation can be objectively invalidated in light of the legal relationship.

D. In addition, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted, since the Plaintiff’s assertion is insufficient to reverse the above recognition on the sole basis of the evidence Nos. 5 through 7, since the Plaintiff’s association members with the same factual relations are merely the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s imposition of capital gains tax is not a circumstance to regard the instant taxation as invalid as a matter of course.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.