2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A. On December 10, 2008, the Plaintiff sold to BB Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BB Construction”) a total of 22,230 square meters of land (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) including 15,92 m2, and 26,000 square meters of land (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 26th day of the same month.

B. On February 28, 2009, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant the transfer income tax of KRW 889,375,581 calculated by applying the transfer value as the actual transaction value to the transfer of the instant land at KRW 4,034,00,000.

C. On September 21, 2009 through October 12, 2009, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China: (a) conducted a tax investigation of capital gains from September 21, 2009 until December 19, 2006; (b) determined that the transfer value of the instant land constituted the actual transaction price of KRW 6,388,275,000, the sum of the sales price under the sales contract entered into with DDD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "DD") and KRW 6,882,370,000, which is the sum of the transfer income tax paid by BB construction 49,090, and notified the Defendant as the actual transaction price; and (c) on December 11, 2009, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 1008,29146,490, and imposed KRW 490 (hereinafter referred to as "the instant disposition").

D. On March 2, 2010, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 4, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on December 27, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 11-3 evidence (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On December 10, 2008, the Plaintiff, while transferring the instant land to BB Construction, shall determine the purchase price of the instant land at KRW 4,034,00,00,000. However, if the instant land is expropriated in a public project due to a special contract, the Plaintiff calculated the purchase price by adding 60,000 won to the amount of compensation and settled it at the time of receiving compensation. The transfer price at the time of the transfer of the instant land is the actual transaction price, and the transfer price at the time of the transfer of the instant land is at KRW 4,034,00,000, which is the actual transaction price. The transfer price at the time of the transfer of the instant land is at KRW 4,034,00,000, which is the actual transaction price. If the subsequent condition is fulfilled and is expropriated in a public project, the Defendant reported and paid the transfer price by filing a revised return. However, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to the provisions of Articles 96(1) and 97(1)1(a) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same), the transfer value and acquisition value of assets under the provisions of each subparagraph of Article 94(1) shall be calculated based on the actual transaction value. In addition, according to the provisions of Article 114(7) of the Income Tax Act and Article 176-2(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21195, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter the same), even if the transfer value are based on the actual transaction value, if it is impossible to recognize or confirm the actual transaction value at the time of the transfer of the relevant assets, the transfer value cannot be deemed the actual transaction value reported by the transferor, and the transfer value shall be determined by applying the transaction example amount, appraisal amount, conversion value

(2) Therefore, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering whether the actual transaction price at the time of the acquisition of the instant land was KRW 6,82,370,00, there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 8, Gap evidence Nos. 15 through 18, Gap evidence Nos. 20, Eul evidence Nos. 20, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the above evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the actual acquisition price of the instant land was KRW 6,882,370,00, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

① The Defendant’s sales contract (Evidence A No. 5) based on the instant disposition is a D, not BB construction.

② The location of the headquarters of BB Construction and DD is identical and similar to human resources; BB Construction takes over the urban development project from DD; BB Construction’s financial statements include the book value of the instant land in KRW 6,967,909,000; BB Construction’s land transaction permit (Evidence 15) was written in KRW 6,38,000,00 as the purchase and sale price of the instant land; BB Construction and DD’s sales contract (Evidence 5) concluded between the Plaintiff and DD before the instant sales contract was concluded on February 19, 2006; BB Construction entered the status of KRW 6,38,275,00 as the purchase price of the instant land; BB Construction’s financial statements; the book value of the instant land in the financial statements was stated in KRW 6,967,90,90,000; and it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff had made the purchase and sale price of the instant land; and BD construction was already reported to the Plaintiff, and its purchaser 8,47549.540.

③ The actual transaction value of the pertinent asset, which serves as the basis for calculating the transfer income tax, refers to the value that the transferor transfers the assets at the time of the transaction and received as the price for the transfer, which is objectively recognizable by a sales contract, receipt, or other documentary evidence. There is no documentary evidence proving that the Plaintiff received or intended to receive the purchase price of the instant land from BB Construction as the purchase price for the instant land. Therefore, since the Defendant’s 6,882,370,000, which is alleged as the transfer price of the instant land, is not verified by the actual transaction amount, the instant disposition that calculated the transfer income tax amount by deeming it as the actual transaction price is unlawful, and there is no proof of legitimate tax amount, and thus,

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.