2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A. On January 9, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired a lot of 1,330 square meters and a building of 145.61 square meters of a gas station on five lots, other than ○○○○-dong, 136-1, and 145.61 square meters of the above ground (hereinafter the “gas station in this case”), and transferred 1.35 million won to Seo-si on October 12, 2006. On January 15, 2007, upon filing a preliminary return of capital gains tax on January 15, 2007, the Plaintiff paid KRW 451,741,510 of the transfer value by applying the standard market price at the time of acquisition and transfer as at the time of acquisition and payment of capital gains tax amounting to KRW 296,640 of the transfer income tax.

B. After that, the Defendant: (a) stated KRW 445,453,546 on the sales contract of the instant gas station separately and issued a tax invoice accordingly; (b) deemed that the Plaintiff omitted a return of capital gains tax on the sales right; (c) on February 10, 2009, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 191,966,780 on February 10, 2009, adding the Plaintiff’s sales right value to the Plaintiff’s capital gains tax amount (hereinafter the instant disposition).

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 2 and Eul evidence 1

2. Determination

This case is focused on whether there has been a transfer of business right which was the basis of the disposition of this case due to the dispute of this case.

Although there is no separate definition provision of business rights under the Income Tax Act, according to Article 94 (1) 4 (a) of the Income Tax Act, the business rights (including those recognized as being transferred with business rights including those obtained by obtaining authorization, permission, license, etc. from the administrative agency even though the business rights are not separately assessed, and those obtained by obtaining the authorization, permission, license, etc. from the administrative agency) are subject to the transfer income tax. The transfer value shall be based on the actual transaction value (the actual transaction value) between the transferor and transferee at the time of transfer of the relevant assets (Article 96 of the Income Tax Act).

In the transfer of the gas station of this case, the defendant imposed tax on the case where the plaintiff separately assessed and transferred its business rights along with the land and building that is fixed assets for business. The grounds for the transfer of the gas station of this case include the real estate and the contract for transfer of business rights between the plaintiff and the plaintiff on September 18, 2006 (the certificate of subparagraph 5, the certificate of subparagraph 2, the sales price of subparagraph 2, 49,000,000 won, and the contract and the tax invoice of KRW 545,454,547, which were issued by the plaintiff on January 24, 2007, the plaintiff applied for the early refund of the value-added tax on the basis of the tax invoice of KRW 545,454,547. However, the plaintiff failed to pay the value-added tax

However, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 3 and 4 and the argument, the plaintiff and Seocho-A shall transfer the gas station of this case to 1.35 million won without distinction of land, buildings, and business rights on August 18, 2006, and the down payment of 135 million won was made on the 21st of the same month. The plaintiff did not have any calculation of business rights as the plaintiff declared and paid the comprehensive income tax for 2003 years from 2003 at the time of operating the gas station of this case. In fact, there is no reason to view that the gas station of this case has excess profit-making power compared to other gas stations, or that there is no evidence to view that the gas station business rights are recognized as equivalent to the normal value of transactions in the area of the gas station of this case, separately from the fact that the contract of September 18, 2006 was prepared as a means to receive value-added tax refund and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff actually used the gas station of this case as evidence.

Furthermore, even if the transfer of the gas station of this case did not separately evaluate the goodwill, it is reasonable to cancel the disposition of this case since it was erroneous in recognizing the taxation requirement fact, unless there are materials to deem that the goodwill was transferred by including the business right or that there was an economic benefit obtained by obtaining the authorization, permission, license, etc. from the administrative agency.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is based on the reasoning, and it is judged the same as the order.