2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On May 2, 1984, the heir of the deceased including the plaintiff et al. succeeded to the 2nd 7th 7th lux 454.6 square meters in the same district (former 654-2; hereinafter referred to as "the land No. 1") and 3rd 7th 454.6 square meters in the same area (former 644-4; hereinafter referred to as "the second 2nd 2nd ") as the deceased's death on May 2, 1984. The land No. 1 of this case was owned by the plaintiff on September 17, 1991, and the registration of transfer of ownership was made on March 15, 1993 for the land No. 2nd 1 of this case.

B. On March 2, 2006, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the instant land No. 1 to ChoB to KimCC and ParkD; and (b) on May 30, 2006, on May 30, 2006, filed a scheduled return of capital gains tax with the following content.

(1) Acquisition date: On March 15, 1993 for the first land of this case for which the registration of ownership transfer has been made by division of jointly-owned property or by agreement on inherited property, and on September 17, 191 for the second land of this case.

(2) Transfer date: March 2, 2006, respectively.

(3) Acquisition value: Total amount of 373,060,000 won at the time of acquisition of each land of this case.

(4) Transfer value: Total amount of 1,707,651,000 won at the time of the transfer of each land of this case.

C. However, the Defendant notified by the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of audit and cadastral data that the time of acquisition of each land of this case should be May 2, 1984, the commencing date of inheritance, and the transfer date and transfer value of the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax on each land of this case shall be deemed as KRW 1,707,651,00 in accordance with the Plaintiff’s preliminary return, but the acquisition date shall be deemed as May 2, 1984, and the disposition of this case was issued on November 1, 2008 by considering the acquisition date as the sum of KRW 80,04,471, which is the standard market price at that time when the acquisition date was inherited, as the sum of acquisition value.

D. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on April 21, 2009, but was dismissed on April 21, 2009 (based on recognition). [The grounds for recognition] The plaintiff did not dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 7-9 (including each number), Eul evidence 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In fact, on May 16, 2002, the Plaintiff sold each of the instant lands to △△ Development Co., Ltd. (former trade name: ○○ Development Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “△△”) KRW 2,484,700,00. 278,700,000 on the date of the contract, intermediate payment of KRW 50 million on August 12, 2002, the remainder of KRW 1,706,00,000 paid each of the instant lands on October 29, 2002, and the Plaintiff received the remainder from △△△ Development to October 29, 2002, on the grounds that each of the instant lands was not transferred due to the transfer of ownership due to the reason that land substitution for replotting of land substitution for replotting, and subsequent to the construction of real estate development of △△△△△△, each of the instant lands was not transferred to △△△, and thus, the representative director did not obtain a complex registration of ownership transfer.

2) On March 2, 2006, △△ Development did not complete the registration of ownership transfer under its name and did not sell the instant land to ChoBB, and the instant land No. 2 was unregistered to KimCC and ParkD. The registered titleholder on each of the instant land was made to prepare a sales contract by directly selling the land to ChoB, etc. from the Plaintiff in the form of the Plaintiff, and accordingly, reported the transfer date to ChoB, etc. on March 2, 2006, when filing a preliminary return of transfer income tax on each of the instant land.

3) However, since the Plaintiff’s transfer of each of the instant land to △△ Development and the date on October 29, 2002, which was the actual transfer date, is deemed to have been the date of the transfer, the instant disposition based on the premise that △△ Development transferred each of the instant land to △B, etc. on March 2, 2006 is illegal.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On May 16, 2002, the Plaintiff: (a) sold each of the instant land to △△ Development in KRW 2,484,700,00; and (b) concluded a sales contract with △△ Development to receive full payment from △△ Development until October 29, 2002.

2) However, as to each of the instant lands, the provisional disposition registration was made on October 25, 2004 as a preserved right for the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership on October 25, 2004, and on January 18, 2006, the registration of provisional disposition was cancelled on February 2, 2006, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the said land was cancelled on March 2, 2006, when the debtor was the △△ Development and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the maximum debt amounting to 2.31 million won was completed in the future of △ Bank.

3) On February 17, 2006, the Plaintiff determined the purchase price as KRW 1.366 billion with respect to the land of this case as KRW 1.374 million, and made a sales contract with respect to the land of this case as KRW 547.5 million with respect to the land of this case, and entered into a sales contract with no separate payment date. On March 2, 2006, with respect to each of the land of this case, the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of ChoB with respect to the land of this case on March 1, 2006, but the land of this case was not ChoB, but with respect to the land of this case, the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of KimCC and Park DD joint names.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 7-1, 7-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts are: (i) the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with △△ Development on May 16, 2002 on each of the instant land; (ii) there is no special circumstance to refuse the registration of ownership transfer in the future for at least three years; (iii) although each of the instant land was planned as planned land for substitution for replotting, it is difficult to deem that △△ Development did not complete the registration of ownership transfer; (iv) the Plaintiff also is disadvantageous to taxation, but there is no special circumstance to hold the above registration title for at least three years, even if he did not complete the registration of ownership transfer in the future for △△ Development; (iii) the Plaintiff, with △△B, prepared a sales contract with the Defendant on February 17, 2006 on each of the instant land; and (iv) it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff received the remainder of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, even if having been designated as the date of transfer transfer registration; and (iv) no evidence was found to be found to be found to be 2.

Therefore, Article 162 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that if the date of liquidation is not clear, the date indicated on the register, register, or list shall be deemed the date of transfer. As to each land of this case, the date of settlement is unclear between the Plaintiff and △ Development and the Plaintiff and △B, while the date of payment is unclear between the Plaintiff and △B, as to each land of this case, it shall be deemed that the date of transfer on March 2, 2006, on which the date of registration of ownership transfer has been made by the Plaintiff, shall be deemed to be the date of transfer. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the Plaintiff’s transfer date of △△ Development is October 29, 202 is

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.