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

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the following arguments and judgments to the corresponding part of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 166 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, "where it is not recognized that a short-term transaction profit is not made or made by illegal means in light of the developments leading up to the acquisition or transfer of real estate in the application of paragraph (4) or the actual use thereof," the actual transaction price may be excluded even in the case of a short-term transaction for a period not exceeding one year, and "where it is not made for the short-term profit" shall be clearly defined in Article 162-2 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, "where it is transferred within one year after acquisition due to unavoidable reasons, such as land expropriation (including purchase), etc. in the application of Article 96 (4) of the Act, and where it is deemed that a transaction is not made for the purpose of short-term profit in light of the developments leading up to the acquisition or transfer of real estate and the actual use thereof, etc."

B. Determination

According to Article 96 subparagraph 1 of the Income Tax Act, the transfer value of land shall be the standard market price at the time of the transfer of the relevant asset, and in cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree in consideration of the type, holding period, scale of transaction, transaction method, etc. of the relevant asset, Article 166 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "it shall be the standard market price at the time of the transfer of the relevant asset, and cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree in consideration of the type, holding period, scale of transaction, transaction method, etc. of the relevant asset" under the proviso of subparagraph 1 of Article 96 of the same Act where the real estate is transferred for the purpose of short-swing profits (Article 166 (5) of the same Act (Article 166 (4) of the same Act), while Article 166 (5) of the same Act provides that "in the application of the provisions of paragraph (4) of the same Act, where it is not for the purpose of short-term

However, according to Article 96 (1) 4 of the amended Income Tax Act, in case where the land is transferred at one year after its acquisition, the transfer value of the land shall be calculated based on the actual transaction value, and there is no provision that the transfer value shall be calculated based on the standard market price exceptionally in certain cases. Article 5 (1) of the Addenda of the same Act provides that the provisions on the transfer income tax in this Act concerning the transfer income tax shall apply from the first transfer after the enforcement of this Act. As seen earlier, as seen earlier, once the Plaintiff acquired the instant land on November 26, 199 and transferred it on February 9, 200, it is apparent that the transfer value of the instant land is within one year thereafter, regardless of the process of acquisition and transfer of the instant land, the transfer value of the instant land shall be based on the actual transaction value.

In addition, according to Article 162-2 (4) of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, "in the application of the provisions of Article 96 (4) of the Act, where transfer is made within one year after acquisition due to unavoidable reasons, such as land expropriation (including purchase by consultation), and where it is recognized that transaction is not made for the purpose of short-term profit profits in light of the details of and the actual use of real estate acquisition or scarcity transfer, it may be made based on the standard market price. However, according to Article 3 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, the amended provisions of this

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just and it shall be dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Suwon District Court 2005Guhap7878 (2006.02.01) Main Issues

A. On November 26, 199, the Plaintiff acquired 00-1 large 00-1 large 917 square meters for 00-2 large 907 square meters for 00-2 large 907 square meters for 00-3 large 464 square meters for 00-3 large 464 square meters for each of the instant lands on February 9, 200, through a successful bid at the court auction procedure. The Plaintiff did not file a transfer income tax on the transfer of 00-2 large 907 square meters for 240,35,000 won for each of the instant lands to 00-2 large 00 square meters for 00,000.

B. Accordingly, on July 12, 2004, the Defendant calculated the transfer value based on the actual transaction price, and imposed KRW 43,624,230 on the Plaintiff in the year 200.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) On June 26, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired ○○○○○○○, 00 00 m2,575 m2,000 square meters from the above land along with ○○○○○, ○○○○, 00 m2,575 m2, and operated a household factory on the above land. On November 4, 1998, when 272m2 out of the above land was expropriated as a road site by ○○○○, the Plaintiff acquired each of

(2) However, the instant land was incorporated into a road site as a result of a change in the road plan of ○○○ Island, and accordingly, ○○○ acquired the instant land from the Plaintiff on February 9, 200.

(3) Ultimately, since the Plaintiff did not acquire and transfer the instant land for the purpose of short-swing profits, it is unlawful for the Defendant to calculate the transfer value based on the actual transaction price and make the instant disposition.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act (Transfer Price) Prior to the amendment by Act No. 6292 on December 29, 2000

C. Determination

However, the former Income Tax Act, which was enforced at the time of the transfer of the pertinent land by the Plaintiff, provides that the transfer value of real estate within one year after the acquisition under Article 96 (1) 4 shall be calculated based on the actual transaction value, and in certain cases, there is no provision that the transfer value according to the standard market price should be calculated based on the exceptional circumstances. As seen earlier, as long as the Plaintiff acquired the instant land on November 26, 199 and transferred on February 9, 200, it is apparent that it would be within one year thereafter, the transfer value of the instant land should be calculated based on the actual transaction value regardless of the developments leading up to the acquisition and transfer of the instant land. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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