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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 19,238,180 on February 8, 2015 (the Director stated on February 16, 2015, but the Correction ex officio) to the Plaintiff was revoked.

A. On November 5, 1991, the Plaintiff acquired a building on the ground of 00,000 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 953 (hereinafter referred to as the “previous building”), on December 10, 1992, the Plaintiff acquired a building on the ground of 1,55 m2 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) before the same lot number, and removed the previous building on or around December 205.

B. On December 18, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to Nonparty Ka in KRW 90,000,000, but did not report capital gains tax. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 90,00,000 in the transfer value, and the conversion acquisition value of KRW 16,389,470 in the transfer income tax for the year 20,138,209 (the amount calculated by subtracting the already paid tax amount from the total determined tax amount, including additional tax, KRW 22,186,416).

C. Since then, the Plaintiff asserted that KRW 24,00,000 of the acquisition value of the instant land and KRW 20,000 of the acquisition value of the previous building, and KRW 44,100,000 of the repair cost of the said building and KRW 44,10,000 of the said building should be recognized as the acquisition value and necessary expenses for the instant land, but was not adopted on December 20, 2014. The Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal on May 13, 2015. The Tax Tribunal recognized that the acquisition value of the instant land was KRW 24,00,000 of the instant land and dismissed the remainder of the claim.

D. Accordingly, on September 23, 2015, the Defendant reduced the transfer income tax on the instant land to KRW 19,238,180 on September 23, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On November 5, 1991, the Plaintiff acquired the previous building, which is a farming house and an unauthorized house, from 20,000,000 won for the purpose of medical treatment. Upon taking into account the construction cost of KRW 44,10,00,000, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land in KRW 24,000,000, around December 1992 while residing in the said building. On March 2005, the Plaintiff intended to sell the instant land and the previous building to Nonparty Ss for KRW 170,000,000, but the previous building was removed by the order of removal at the Gi-si, but the sales contract became null and void. Since the Plaintiff supplied the instant land to Nonparty C, who is the birth of the Plaintiff, with KRW 90,00,00,00,000, inasmuch as the acquisition price and repair cost of the previous building violated the principle of substantial taxation and equality of the instant land.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to Article 97 (1) of the Income Tax Act, the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value of land is the acquisition value related to the corresponding land, so the acquisition value, etc. of a separate individual building, etc. from the land is not the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value of land in principle. However, in exceptional cases where a building is removed to use the land and a building on the ground to use only the land, and only the land is transferred in the state of a site, such as the commencement of removal of the building within a short time after the acquisition, if it is deemed that the acquisition of the land and a building is obviously deemed to have been for the purpose of only removing the land from the beginning to the beginning, and only utilizing the land, the acquisition value, removal cost, etc. of the removed building may be included in the necessary expenses of the transferred asset included in the transfer value of the

However, as acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff acquired the previous building first on November 1, 1991 and later acquired the land of this case on or around December 12, 192, and even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff actually resided in the previous house for the purpose of medical care from November 1, 1991 to October 1993, and the previous building was demolished by an order of demolition at the Sin-si around 1995. In light of such circumstances, the Plaintiff can be seen as not acquiring the previous building in a lump sum for the purpose of using only the land of this case, and there is no other circumstance to prove that the purpose of acquiring the previous building is apparent. Accordingly, the acquisition value and repair cost of the previous building cannot be deemed as necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value of the land of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.