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

(1) On May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) around 200 and transferred it to CCC around 2012, and reported and paid the transfer income tax for the year 2012 as follows.

B. On June 13, 2016, the Defendant denied necessary expenses and reduction and exemption, and ordered the Plaintiff to pay the difference of KRW 1,546,83,060 as follows. The Defendant issued an additional payment of KRW 1,546,83,060.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The Plaintiff shall file an objection against the instant disposition, and the Defendant shall file an objection on October 24, 2016, and the Plaintiff shall additionally recognize the acquisition value and necessary expenses as follows, and shall reduce the transfer income tax for the year 2012.”

Applicant again filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on April 4, 2017.

(v) around November 2017, when the instant lawsuit was pending, the Defendant considered the Plaintiff as necessary expenses and corrected the transfer income tax for the year 2012 by additionally recognizing the Plaintiff as follows.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 9, 10, and e,00 markets

Results of fact inquiry, overall purport of pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(1) Article 97(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that one of the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value when calculating gains on transfer is "capital expenses as prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 163(2)), such as transfer expenses (Article 163(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Article 67(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act), "capital expenses calculated by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 67(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Article 67(3) of the Income Tax Act), expenses paid for the change, improvement or convenience of use of transferred assets, development charges under the Restitution of Development Gains Act, development charges under the Restitution of Excess Gains Act, reconstruction charges under the Restitution of Development Gains Act, and expenses corresponding thereto as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance)," and Article 163(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "the expenses directly paid for the transfer of the relevant assets, such as expenses for filing a return of tax base for transfer income tax, expenses for writing contracts, contribution, and introduction expenses, and purchase expenses, and losses arising from the transfer of land.

Meanwhile, according to the main text of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66(13) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a "resident who intends to be eligible for reduction of capital gains tax shall be engaged in the cultivation of crops in his/her own farmland or cultivation with his/her own labor not less than 1/2 of the farming works."

B. Miscellaneous, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land amounting to KRW 82,96,130, and labor cost for molding (dry field) 21,57,410, which was paid as improvement cost, constitutes capital expenditure, etc.

100 million won of this equipment concerning the seven grave period (one hundreds of fives of fives of fives of fives of fives of fives of fives of fives of fives of fives of fives of fives of fives of fives of fives of one's own interest)

② The instant provisions on capital gains tax reduction or exemption should be applied because they met the requirements for re-villageging for at least eight years with respect to the land excluding forests and fields among the instant land.

Consolidatedly, I first examine the farmland diversion charges.

According to the fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding, it is not confirmed that there is additional farmland conversion charges or farmland creation cost paid by the plaintiff in relation to the land in this case, in addition to 35,349,780 won in total of farmland conversion charges and farmland creation cost reflected in reduction and correction, recognized by the defendant. The plaintiff's assertion in

Applicant regards the cost of labor for covering soil.

Even in accordance with the statement of daily labor cost payment, confirmation of self-sufficiency, and request for payment (Evidence 8-2) submitted by the Plaintiff as evidentiary materials, the contents of each of the above documents are written in the form of the documents, in particular, the disbursement name (which is written in the new training institute construction work, street planting project, etc.), the preparation column (which is written in Dodddd), the settlement column (which is written in the signature of the person without the name of the company), and the use space (EE in the name of the company using the name of the company). This is merely a document prepared in the process of treating it as the private company's expenses (as seen in the front and rear, the Plaintiff did not mention the above part of the real estate rental business from March 14, 202 to December 31, 2010, the Defendant did not have any other reason to recognize that the real estate rental business was carried out by EE as its capital expenses or that it does not constitute one of the above part of the business construction expenses.

(v)with respect to the equipment of a grave:

In order to constitute transfer cost, etc., which is one of the necessary expenses deducted from the transfer value when calculating gains from transfer, the actual expenses should be recognized as necessary expenses, unless there are special circumstances, such as that the payment limit of transfer cost under the current tax law exceeds a quid pro quo in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu12088, Nov. 22, 1996). Unless special circumstances exist, the actual expenses should be recognized as necessary expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu6439, Jan. 25, 191; 91Nu2250, Jul. 12, 1991; 90Nu4808, Nov. 27, 1990).

○ Facts established by the evidence are as follows.

On December 21, 201, prepared between the Plaintiff (seller) and CCC (ACC) on December 21, 201, the sales and sales contract (including a grave for a graveyard No. 6-2) states that the remainder payment shall be made simultaneously with the payment of the graveyard No. 4 (including a grave for a graveyard), and that the amount of KRW 250 million out of the purchase price shall be paid to the graveyard related party in the cost of graveyard transfer (four for a cemetery term), and the said sales and sales contract is sealed by the seal of thisG in the guarantor column. The content of the contract states that the guarantor is a joint and several surety in performing the contract of the seller and the buyer.

On February 20, 2012, the president of HH Bank takes up five (1074061, 10074062, 10074073, 10074, 10074075) cashier's checks (Evidence A-7-2, 7) on February 20, 2012. According to the JJ Bank's cashier's checks (Evidence A-7-7), two (2) of the five (6) of the five (3) JJ Bank's cashier's checks were endorsed by thisGG, and two (2) of the two (6 March 2, 2012, 200) were endorsed by OOO Co., Ltd., and no endorsement was made on April 6, 2012. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23788, Apr. 6, 2012>

On July 20, 2012, the deposit amount of KRW 50 million was deposited on July 20, 2012 in the KK Bank's deposit account (Evidence 7-3) in the Plaintiff's name, and KRW 50 million was replaced on the same day.

이GG이 원고에게 작성��교부한 2012. 7. 20.자 영수증(갑 제7호증의 1)에는 '1억 원을 묘지(7기) 이장비용(묘지연고자 보상비 및 이장비용)으로 영수하며 위 금액 외 증감에 대하여는 차후 일체 재청구하지 않을 것을 확약'한다는 내용이 기재되어 있다.

The fact confirmation of July 21, 2017 (Evidence A No. 12) of the KimL prepared stated that the KimL, a seller of the Incorporated Association CCC funds, received the transfer expenses from the Plaintiff, and paid the transfer expenses to the Lee GG, a person in charge of the management of funds for the incorporated association. The KimL stated that on February 20, 2012, the KimL paid the advance payment to the Lee G, a person in charge of the management of funds for the incorporated association, KimL, KimL paid 50,000 won of cashier's checks directly from the Plaintiff and paid it to thisG in the presence of the Plaintiff, and after the completion of the grave site, the Plaintiff paid 50,000 won directly to thisG.

The confirmation of May 2, 2012, attached to a confirmation of fact (Evidence A No. 12) on July 21, 2017 of the KimL, stated that the balance of the above purchase price is KRW 600 million finally paid on May 2, 2012.

According to the fact-finding by this court, the fact-finding reply letter submitted by the incorporated association CCC had been held responsible for and carried out by the guarantor of the contract, and the graveyard transfer equipment was KRW 250 million under the contract, but the graveyard transfer equipment was possible if this GG had been KRW 100 million, the graveyard transfer equipment was possible. On December 20, 2012, the seller sent a cashier's checks of KRW 50 million to this GG in the presence of thisM, and the remainder of KRW 50 million was required to pay it directly to this GG. Thus, the graveyard transfer equipment was stated as follows: "No evidentiary document exists for the graveyard payment."

The GG received KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff as the head of the Tong, and received KRW 70 million in total from KimL. In addition, KRW 30,000 from 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won from the KimL, when selling and selling the land using the graveyard equipment, and, from 2 years to 30,000, more than 30,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was 2,47,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00.

However, this GG did not clearly testify in this court as to whether the money received from GGL was the Plaintiff’s cashier’s checks received from KimL as it is, in its initial cross-examination, by dividing 20 million won from GL and 30 million won in total.

In addition, thisG witness was 50,000 won in cash, and 200,000 won in checks were 40,000 won in cash, and 50,000 won in checks were 40,000 won in cash, and 30,000 won in checks were 4 and 30,000 won in other graveyards 4 and 30,000 won were 7,000,000,000 won were 4 and 4,000,000,000 won were 7,000,000,000 won were 7,000,000,000 won and 7,000,000 won were 7,00,000,000 won and 7,000,000 won were 3,00,000 won were 4,000,000 won and 7,00,000 won were 3,00.

The plaintiff's assertion about the removal of graves is without merit in the following point.

- The sales contract does not coincide with the 7th of July 20, 2012, which was written by thisG, including receipts from July 20, 2012, or testimony from immigrationG (4th of July, 2012, + 3th of July, 2012). It is unclear when and how each of the existing graves was removed on the instant land.

- The sales contract states that the balance should be paid at the same time as the payment of the balance, and that even in the confirmation of the facts dated July 21, 2017 by KimL, the statement that “G” issued a cashier’s checks of KRW 50 million on February 20, 2012 and demanded the Plaintiff to pay KRW 50 million to thisG after the completion of the tomb. However, the statement of testimony by the witness that the remainder was paid on May 2, 2012 and that there was the most difficult time until the completion of the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the incorporated association CCC is inconsistent with this.

- ThisG testified that 47 million won, out of 50 million won received from the Plaintiff and kept in the passbook, was paid to the former transferee through the Incorporated CCC as the former transferee resolved the two different issues in the cemetery second period. However, the corporate CCC stated that no evidentiary document exists regarding the payment of graveyard relocation, and there is no objective evidentiary document verifying the authenticity thereof.

- This GG testified that it used 23 million won out of 20 million won cashier's checks paid by KimL and 30 million won out of 50 million won paid by the Plaintiff as its own expenses, but there is no receipt. Thus, it cannot be confirmed whether the total amount of 23 million won has been used as the expense of the cemetery.

- The KimL referred to as "one hundred thousand won of a cashier's checks issued to thisG on February 20, 2012," while this GG used 30 million won of a cashier's checks from KimL for expenses, and the KimL used 'the 30 million won of a cashier's checks from KimL for expenses, and the 'the 30 million won of a KimL was paid as other graveyard'. Further, this witness testified that this GG paid 47 million won of a five-year funeral relocation expenses to the former transferee and paid 2 years of a five-year funeral and a three-year funeral relocation expenses, but this testimony that 'the 17.5 million won of a cashier's checks from the above 10 million won of a cashier's checks from the above 1,000 won of a five-year funeral expenses to the above 5-G funeral and the above 5-G funeral's checks were made to the above 5-G funeral and the above 5-G funeral.

- As seen earlier, there is still no objective evidence to verify whether there was a few time grave in the land of this case. Moreover, as long as there is insufficient evidence to verify whether the said grave was ordinarily transferred during the course of sale and purchase, the amount of expenses actually paid for this Chapter, and evidence to verify whether the said expenses fall under the amount of money equivalent to the socially accepted social norms, which has no choice but to be spent directly for the transfer of the land of this case, is too insufficient, the said KRW 100 million asserted by the Plaintiff cannot be recognized as one of the necessary expenses when calculating gains on transfer.

○ Whether the person is self-satisf

- As seen in the Plaintiff’s business (No. 2), global income tax return of approximately KRW 200 billion for the year 200 billion, approximately KRW 200 billion for the year 200 billion through April 19, 199, KRW 500 billion for the year 200 billion, KRW 200 billion for the income amount of KRW 40 billion for the year 200 billion, KRW 700 billion for the year 200 billion from March 14, 2002 to December 31, 2010, KRW 500 billion for the year 200 billion, KRW 600,0000 for the income amount of KRW 200,000 for the year 200,0000,0000 for the income amount of KRW 1.7 billion for the year 200,0000,000 for each 200,000 won.

-as shown in the evidence of the entry into and departure from Korea, 25 times in the year 200 (10 days in the period), 13 times in the year 2001 (49 days in the period), 13 times in the year 2002 (64 days in the period), 13 times in the year 2003 (69 days in the period), 20 times in the year 204 (113 days in the year 107), 19 times in the year 2005 (107 days in the period), 9 times in the year 206, 5 times in the year 2007 (27 days in the period), 10 days in the year 208 (34 days in the year 2009), 30 days in the year 209 (29 days in the year 2016), 30 days in the year 205 (16 days in the year 2005) period in the record (16 days in the year 306 days in the year 16 days in the year 205 days.

- As above, in the instant case where the Plaintiff had another occupation that has earned a considerable amount of income during the period of possession of the instant land, and considerable departure records appear. However, in order to satisfy the requirements for reduction and exemption of self-farmland for 8 years, the Plaintiff must prove that the Plaintiff cultivated at least 1/2 of the farming work with his own labor in order to satisfy the requirements for reduction and exemption of self-farmland. However, it is insufficient to recognize this only by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the farmland ledger (No. 10-1), the certificate of association members (No. 10-2), the receipt of certificate of purchase of agricultural materials (No. 11-2), and the certificate of fact on November 27, 2017 (No. 13), including the certificate of fact by the Plaintiff on November 27, 2017 (No. 13).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.