2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On November 12, 2013, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of ○○○ and ○○○○○ on the capital gains tax in 2012 against the Plaintiff.

A. On February 27, 2002, ○○○○ entered into a contract with ○○○○○○○○○○○-dong 15-5 large 519.6 square meters in the central commercial land in the development project district of ○○ New Market, and paid the total sum of ○○○○○○ Won for down payment and one-time intermediate payment. On February 11, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with ○○○○○ on the succession of rights and obligations under the said parcelling-out contract with ○○○○○ and ○○ market, upon which the Plaintiff acquired the right to sell the said land (hereinafter “instant right to sell”). After paying the sales price in full and acquiring the said land on July 13, 2012, the Plaintiff sold it to ○○○○.

B. On September 15, 2013, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer value of the above land as KRW 00,000 and the acquisition value as the total of KRW 00,000 and KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for capital gains tax paid to ○○ and ○○○.

C. The defendant conducted a tax investigation on the grounds of the difference between the acquisition value and the transfer value of the former owner.

On November 12, 2013, on the ground that the fact of premium payment is not recognized, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff to additionally pay the capital gains tax of 2012, on the premise that the transfer value of the said land is KRW 00,000,000, and that the acquisition value is ○○○ (including the additional tax of ○○○ and the additional tax of ○○○, which is the tax payable, but is the amount limited to the amount of ○○, which is the tax payable) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”), and accordingly, the Plaintiff notified the correction and notification of the local income tax of ○○.

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection with the head of ○○ Tax Office on November 29, 2013, but was dismissed on December 19, 2013, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 17, 2013, but was dismissed on May 21, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for revocation of imposition of local income tax among the instant lawsuit

ex officio, local income tax on capital gains of residents should be reported and paid to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment, and correction of local income tax on capital gains of residents is also made by the head of the Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment.

If income tax is imposed and notified in accordance with the method of correction, determination, etc. under the Income Tax Act, the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu, even if the local income tax is imposed and notified together.

Since the imposition and notification are deemed to have been made, the defendant in an appeal suit seeking the revocation of the imposition shall be the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11459, Feb. 25, 2005).

Therefore, the part seeking revocation of the imposition of local income tax of KRW 5,114,620 among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it is against a person who is not a defendant.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff demanded and paid ○○○○○’s premium in return for the resale of the instant sales right. However, the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant cashier’s checks is generally accepted at the time of resale; however, in light of the Plaintiff’s high competition at the time of the sale right, and the Plaintiff’s acquisition of profits from the market price of KRW 00,000 after about 10 years of the purchase price, the amount of premium should be recognized in light of the empirical rule. Although the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the cashier’s checks, including the above premium, from the bank account at the date of payment for resale price, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the cashier’s checks, including the above premium, from the bank account at the date of payment for resale price, the Defendant’s disposal of the instant cashier’s checks was contrary to the legal principles on the burden of proof of taxation requirements, and was unlawful by abusing discretionary power over additional taxation.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the premium was paid

(A) The tax authority shall bear the burden of proving the tax base that is the basis of taxation in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the income tax disposition, and the tax base is deducted from necessary expenses. Thus, the tax authority shall bear the burden of proving revenues and necessary expenses in principle. However, since most of the factual relations generating necessary expenses are in the territory under the control of the taxpayer and the tax authority is difficult to prove, it accords with the concept of fairness if it is reasonable to prove the taxpayer by taking into account the difficulty in proving it, equity between the parties, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du16137, Oct. 26, 2007). In addition, if the tax authority proves that the reason such as the use of necessary expenses reported by the taxpayer or the other party to the payment is false, it shall be deemed that the necessity of proving that such expenses have been actually paid in light of the concept of fairness, etc., regardless of the difficulty of proving the tax amount or the necessity of proving that such expenses have been actually paid, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du31234.).

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement in public health room, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence No. 2 as to this case, the defendant stated that, at the time of the defendant's tax investigation, O○ did not know about the resale of the sale right of this case and did not receive the check of this case. The defendant alleged that ○○ was stolen; O○, which was the type of O○○ and the plaintiff alleged that △△△△ bank was the actual resale at the time of the tax investigation, did not have any details of transactions before and after February 11, 2003; △△△△△△△△△ was also a licensed real estate agent office's office's broker, △△△△△△ and the broker of the plaintiff as the broker of the plaintiff did not have any degree of involvement in the resale of the sale right of this case and stated that the plaintiff did not have any memory at all.

(B) According to the statement of △△△△ on February 11, 2003, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW △△△△△△△△△△△△'s account from the account of △△△△△△△△△△△ branch, which was the head of △△△△△△△△△ branch, as one cashier's check number **********; hereinafter referred to as "the check in this case"), and the check in this case was presented to △△△△ branch on the following day, and the fact that the check in this case was discarded after the expiration of the current preservation period and was not the last holder. However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff failed to submit all the supporting documents, such as the actual contract and receipt, in relation to the premium agreement, and there is no other evidence supporting the fact that the check in this case was delivered to ○○○○, the Plaintiff's assertion that the check in this case was not acceptable, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff did not sell it at the time of sale or resale.

(2) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused or not

The relationship between the amount of the capital gains tax decided and notified in the disposition of this case as seen earlier.

As long as it is not the sole method to prove the fact that confirming the payer of the instant check is legally calculated in accordance with the legal standards, and it is not the only method to prove the fact that the check payment was made, the instant disposition cannot be deemed as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power due to the Plaintiff’s excessive suspicion on the ground that it is difficult to prove the Plaintiff’s lack of proof. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation against the imposition of local income tax among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit.