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

A. On December 2, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired and owned the Plaintiff’s 1/3 shares in the instant real estate from Nonparty DD and four other persons on December 12, 2006, jointly with Nonparty 1, 2000, ○○○○○○○○○○○, 119, 120-2, 231 square meters (a total of 416 square meters), and 135.54 square meters in the instant land and commercial buildings (hereinafter “instant land and buildings”) and owned the same real estate, and transferred the Plaintiff’s 1/3 shares in the instant real estate to Nonparty 4,000,000,000 won. However, on May 31, 2007, the Plaintiff made a final return on the transfer of the instant real estate shares to KRW 840 million,0000,0000,0000,0000,000 won, calculated based on the actual transaction price calculated according to the ratio of KRW 3934,5394,094.

C. However, on September 1, 2008, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate shares in KRW 493,33,333 (the Plaintiff deemed that the said KimCC transferred the instant real estate to a third party, including the Plaintiff, at KRW 1.488,00,00,000), and accordingly, issued the instant disposition that additionally imposed 48,138,690, which was calculated by deducting the amount of tax already paid and notified from the total determined tax amount of KRW 103,229,648, such as the acquisition tax amount by transfer, penalty tax, etc. calculated accordingly, as the transfer income tax for the year 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not regard the sales contract at the time of acquiring the instant real estate from the Seocho et al. and KimCC. After acquiring the instant real estate, the Plaintiff, while changing the instant real estate to restaurant, sentenced the transfer income tax to the conversion price under Article 97 (1) 1 (b) of the Income Tax Act as the capital expenditure of 200 million won or more was made, but there was no way to verify it. Thus, the instant disposition that was otherwise reported is unlawful even though the transfer income

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

However, according to Article 97 (1) of the Income Tax Act, in the calculation of gains on transfer, the acquisition value of necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value (subparagraph 1), capital expenditure, etc. as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (subparagraph 2), transfer expense, etc. (subparagraph 3). The above provision provides that the acquisition value shall be the actual transaction value required for the acquisition of assets, but where the actual transaction value at the time of the acquisition is not verifiable, it shall be the transaction example value, appraisal value, or conversion value prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In light of the structure and language of the above provision, it is deemed that the sale price, appraisal value, or conversion value can be deemed as the acquisition value only if the actual acquisition value cannot be verified among necessary expenses to be deducted from the necessary expenses. Since the acquisition value of real estate can be deemed as the lawful acquisition value or necessary expenses, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit. Rather, according to the purport of the above provision of subparagraph 1 (a) and (b) above, according to the purport of the above provision of subparagraph 1 (3) and (b) above, the acquisition value of real estate in this case No. 303 billion won.

3. Conclusion

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