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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 65,498,670 on the Plaintiff on February 1, 2006 shall be revoked.

A. The Korea Land Corporation is the executor of the "○○○ Housing Site Development Project" (hereinafter referred to as the "project in this case") approved by the development plan under the Ministry of Construction and Transportation Notice No. 2001-326 of December 14, 2001.

B. The Plaintiff owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “each real estate of this case”) as the real estate of this case was incorporated into the business zone of this case, and the Korea Land Corporation accepted each real estate of this case on June 24, 2003, on the ground that the owner of each real estate of this case cannot be identified, and deposited each of the real estate of this case on the following grounds: (a) ○○○ 17 years old and 17 years old and ○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ was established by descendants for the purpose of protecting graves of this case and promoting friendship among his descendants, but ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ was already dead, and ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ as the land of this case had been actually aware of the scope of shares of the heir ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ and three others.

C. On March 11, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Korea Land Corporation, etc. to confirm the claim for payment of deposit money with the Suwon District Court 2004Da3362, and won the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “instant civil judgment”) on June 14, 2005, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 7, 2005.

D. After that, on September 30, 2005, the Plaintiff was admitted to the Korea Land Corporation to expropriate each of the instant real estate, and received compensation therefor, and paid the remainder after deducting 1/10 of the transfer income tax amount by applying the preliminary return tax credit.

E. On February 1, 2006, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff stated in the Plaintiff’s claim on February 1, 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the premise that the instant preliminary return was made after the time limit for the preliminary return of capital gains tax was exceeded.

F. On May 4, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on or around December 18, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7 evidence (including paper numbers), Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) In light of the following points, the transfer date of each real estate of this case shall be the date of July 7, 2005, which is the time when the civil judgment of this case became final and conclusive. As seen above, the Plaintiff made the preliminary return of this case on September 30, 2005, which is within the preliminary return period of transfer income tax (2 months from the end of the month to which the date of the first transfer belongs). Thus, the tax credit for the Plaintiff shall be applied under Article 108 of the Income Tax Act.

- The taxation requirement of capital gains tax is the realization of gains from transfer, and in principle, Article 162 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "the date of liquidation of the price of the relevant assets" as the date of transfer. In this case, the time when the Korea Land Corporation deposited compensation for each real estate of this case shall be June 24, 2003; however, since the deposit was made absolutely impossible, the plaintiff can exercise his right to the above compensation only when the deposit was made on July 7, 2005 when the civil judgment of this case became final and conclusive, since the date when the price of the sale of each real estate of this case is liquidated shall be July 7, 2005, which is the date when the civil judgment of this case became final and conclusive.

In addition, according to Article 162 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, in case where assets are transferred and the proceeds are not determined by the date of settlement, the date of the settlement of the assets concerned shall be considered to be the date of the date of the transfer. Thus, since there is a dispute between the plaintiff and the family members, who are the transferor or the owner of each real estate of this case, who are the transferor or the title trustee of each real estate of this case, each of the real estate of this case, the ownership of each of the real estate of this case was transferred to the Korea Land Corporation under the condition that the ownership of rights is not determined. Since the ownership of each real estate of this case was determined by the civil judgment of this case, the transfer date of

(2) On the contrary, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which was made under the premise that the Plaintiff’s transfer of each of the instant real estate was not subject to the tax credit for preliminary return on the grounds that the preliminary return of this case was made after the scheduled return date of transfer income tax was completed in the future of the Korea Land Corporation, shall not only contravene the purport of the system of tax credit for preliminary return payment (the taxpayer who made a conscientious return and paid the corresponding compensation, while compensating the taxpayer for financial losses related to the payment before the final return due date of payment) but also be a disposition contrary to the principle of tax equality, which resulted in discrimination against the taxpayer who made the preliminary return without any reasonable grounds.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which was made under the premise that the Plaintiff filed the preliminary return of this case after the preliminary return deadline of capital gains tax was excessive, was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) the marketing;

(1) Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion on the transfer date of each real estate of this case

According to Article 98 of the Income Tax Act and Article 162 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the date of liquidation is unclear when the assets are transferred, or where the registration of ownership transfer is made prior to the settlement of the price, the date of receipt of the registration shall be deemed the date of transfer. In the case of transfer of each real estate of this case, as alleged by the plaintiff, the date of settlement of the price in this case is July 7, 2005, which is the date of settlement of the civil judgment in this case. As seen above, since the registration of ownership preservation has been made on July 7, 2003 on each land of this case, the transfer date of each real estate of this case shall be deemed to be July 7, 2003, which is the date of the above registration (the date of the transfer of each real estate of this case shall be deemed to be the date of the transfer of the ownership in this case, even if the ownership transfer registration was made before the date of liquidation of the price in this case, the purport of Article 162 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be deemed to be the transfer date.

On the other hand, since there was a legal dispute as to who the owner of each real estate of this case is the owner of each real estate of this case, each real estate of this case was an undetermined asset, and each real estate of this case was confirmed by the civil judgment of this case concerning the ownership relation of each real estate of this case after transfer to Korea Land Corporation. Thus, as to the plaintiff's assertion that the date of the above confirmation should be the date of transfer of each real estate of this case, the "property of this case" of Article 162 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act refers to the property of which the scope of the ownership or ownership is not legally confirmed. Although the ownership or ownership of the right is legally determined, the ownership or ownership of each real estate of this case can not be included in the scope of the "property of this case which is not finally confirmed". As seen above, each real estate of this case was owned by the plaintiff before the Korea Land Corporation was accepted, only because the civil judgment of this case became final and conclusive, it cannot be accepted as the plaintiff's assertion that the above provision of this case is "property of this case."

Therefore, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 105 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act, the preliminary return deadline for the tax base of capital gains tax on the transfer of each real estate of this case shall be until September 30, 2003 (2 months from the last day of July 7, 2003, which belongs to the date of the transfer of each real estate of this case). As seen above, the preliminary return of this case was made on September 30, 2005, which is after the above deadline was over, and therefore, the tax credit for the transfer of each real estate of this case under Article 108 of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied to the transfer of each real estate of this case (On the other hand, if the time of deposit of compensation for each real estate of this case is deemed as the date of liquidation, the date of transfer on June 24, 2003, and the preliminary return deadline for capital gains tax base shall be the same as the date of the preliminary return of this case after the scheduled return of this case is made).

(2) Determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition violates the purport of the preliminary tax credit system and the principle of tax equality

The purpose of the preliminary return tax credit system under Articles 105 through 108 of the Income Tax Act is to compensate taxpayers who have filed a return and made a payment in good faith as alleged by the plaintiff, while compensating them for financial losses related to the payment before the deadline for the final return and payment. However, Article 105(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that a preliminary return may be made only within the said period, while Article 105(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that where there are justifiable grounds for not making a preliminary return within the said period, a preliminary return shall be deemed to have been made within the said period and the tax credit for the preliminary return shall not be applied. In light of the fact that the preliminary return and payment credit system has the nature of benefits other than the tax system, regardless of the existence of justifiable grounds, it cannot be said that the interpretation that the preliminary return and payment credit cannot be granted where a preliminary return is made after the said period is over, contrary to the purport of the preliminary return and payment credit system is contrary to the purport of the preliminary return and payment

On the other hand, with respect to the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is in violation of the principle of tax equality, as seen above, the tax credit for the preliminary return payment constitutes tax benefits, and as such, Articles 105 through 108 of the Income Tax Act provide for the system of tax credit for the preliminary return payment, and there is no separate provision as to the case where the preliminary return is not made within the specified period, it shall not be deemed that the taxpayer is discriminated without a reasonable ground by not applying the tax credit for the preliminary return payment in such case, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is in violation

(iii)In the case of a suit

Therefore, since the preliminary return of this case was made after the preliminary return deadline expired, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which was made on the ground that the Plaintiff did not apply the tax credit for the transfer of each real estate of this case, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.