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

A. On January 10, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired and owned No. 401 (exclusive area of 48.13 square meters; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the five-story apartment (exclusive area of 48.13 square meters; hereinafter the same shall apply) in Seoul BB Dong BB-dong BB-dong, 794-26, 794-27 from the KimF, and transferred the apartment to Nonparty GambCC at KRW 150,000 on October 30, 2007.

B. On December 10, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on capital gains tax with the purport that the transfer of the instant housing constitutes one household’s non-taxable object.

C. On December 1, 2008, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that “the Plaintiff owned Nonparty DoD’s Do-dong 28-21 ECEC 502, which was the same household as the Plaintiff at the time of the transfer of the instant house, owned KRW 45,00,000 on the ground that the transfer of the said house is not exempt from taxation for one household; and (b) the Plaintiff’s completion of the registration of transfer of ownership on the said house is stated in the stamp attached thereto as KRW 45,00,000; (c) the acquisition value is reasonable to determine the discount amount of KRW 45,00,000; and (d) the initial preliminary return of non-taxation was excluded; and (e) the transfer value calculated based on the actual transaction amount is KRW 150,00,000, KRW 45,0000, and the acquisition value is determined and notified as the transfer income tax for year 2007.

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection against the Defendant on January 13, 2009, and the Defendant, on February 12, 2009, applied the unfair non-reported penalty tax rate as a general non-reported penalty tax rate, thereby reducing the transfer income tax pursuant to the instant disposition to KRW 25,849,176.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The non-party 2 is the owner of the land in Seoul BB-dong BB-dong 794-26 and one parcel, which is the site of the apartment in this case, and the construction business operator, newly constructed the apartment in size of 5 stories on the above site with the construction business operator, and entered into an agreement to transfer the ownership of 4 stories and 5 stories, which were newly constructed as payment for the construction cost, on behalf of the non-party 2, who did not prepare the construction cost thereafter, the plaintiff, JH and H invested the above construction cost on behalf of the non-party 5. Accordingly, on October 5, 2002, the plaintiff, JH and MF was the owner of the apartment in this case, and the sale price of 401 (the housing in this case) was not the acquisition price of the above apartment in this case, and the transfer registration of 501 (the housing in this case) was not the sale price of 400, which was indicated as the sale price of 500, the sale price of the housing in this case was calculated as the sale price of 501).

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to Articles 94(1), 96(1), and 97(1)1(a) and (b) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same), which was enforced at the time of the transfer of the instant house, gains on transfer of a building must be calculated on the basis of actual transaction amount. In this regard, the approval seal contract prepared by the parties to the transaction and signed by the head of the Si/Gun, etc. shall be presumed to have been prepared according to the sales contract between the parties, barring special circumstances, and the assertion that the contract was prepared differently from the actual transaction amount shall be proved (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2353, Apr. 9, 193).

(2) However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 6-3, the plaintiff purchased the house of this case from Kim FF on December 8, 2002, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 10, 2003, and according to the seal of approval attached by the plaintiff at the time of the registration of ownership transfer, it can be recognized that the date of the formation of the contract of this case is indicated as December 8, 2002, and the purchase price is KRW 45,00,000, etc., barring any special circumstance, it shall be presumed that the plaintiff purchased the house of this case from Kim FF on December 8, 2002, and that the above concurrent contract was prepared differently from the actual one must be proved by the plaintiff.

Therefore, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the instant housing and the instant apartment No. 501 were merely prepared for convenience in the registration of ownership transfer, and thus, the approval seal of the instant apartment construction is merely 00 for the transfer of ownership. According to the health, evidence No. 2, and evidence No. 4 as to whether the acquisition value of the instant apartment construction cannot be verified or recognized, Nonparty KimF was the owner of the instant apartment, BB Dong 794-26, and 794-27, which is the site of the instant apartment, and this case’s new construction of the five-story apartment on the ground of the instant housing and the instant apartment No. 500, which is the owner of the instant apartment construction, and this case’s new construction of the instant apartment on the 198, which is the owner of the instant apartment construction, and this case’s new construction of the instant apartment on the 1st and five-story apartment, which is the owner of the instant apartment construction, and this case’s new construction of the 1st and five-story apartment construction work.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as indicated in the evidence Nos. 2 and 9-1 through 5 of the evidence Nos. 5, KimF, as seen earlier, can be acknowledged that the ownership of the instant house was transferred to the Plaintiff on Jan. 10, 2003, and the Plaintiff filed a global income tax return for the ownership No. 501 of the instant apartment to the largest KK on Jan. 10, 2003, stating the total amount of revenue related to the construction and sale of each of the instant apartment units as KRW 90,00,000,000 as stated in the approval seal agreement, and the maximum KK, which acquired the ownership of No. 501 of the said apartment units, transferred the said apartment units to Nonparty M on Mar. 24, 2006, by paying the preliminary return for transfer income tax to Nonparty 1, the acquisition value of the instant apartment units was KRW 45,000,000 from the approval seal agreement.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which calculated capital gains tax based on the amount of KRW 45,00,000 as stated in the sales contract submitted at the time of transfer registration of ownership, is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.