Article 97 of the Income Tax Act

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

A. On September 27, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 150,000,000,000 from Daejeon ○○○-dong ○○○-dong 200-2,000,000,000 won for KRW 15,000,000,000. On October 30, 2003, part of which was divided into KRW 42-○ Forest 992 square meters under the same Act. On November 14, 2003, the Plaintiff sold a portion of which was divided into KRW 42-○-○,00,000,000 for KRW 19,268,00 and KRW 198,00,00 for each of which was 470.67 square meters for forest 1,412 square meters.

B. On March 6, 2006, the Plaintiff sold the above divided 42-○ Forest No. 992 square meters to ○○○, Inc. (hereinafter “the instant land No. 2”) in KRW 480 million. In addition, on October 26, 2006, the Plaintiff sold to the said company the remaining 470.6 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land No. 3”) excluding the instant land No. 1 among the forests divided into 42-○ forests and fields in KRW 238 million.

C. Since each land of this case was designated as a land speculation area on August 18, 2003, Daejeon ○○-gu, 2003 where each land of this case is located, gains on transfer of each land of this case are subject to taxation based on the actual transaction price.

라. 피고는 이 사건 각 토지의 양도가액을 제1토지의 경우에는 397,268,000원(=199,268,000원 + 198,000,000원), 이 사건 제2ㅡ 3토지는 718,000,000원(= 4억 8,000만원 + 2억 3,800만원)으로, 이 사건 각 토지의 취득가액은 토지분할 전의 원래 취득가액 1억 5,000만 원을 기준으로 하여 전체 취득면적(2,404㎡)에서 분할된 각 토지가 차지하는 비율로 계산하여 이 사건 제1토지의 경우 58,735,857,원(1억 5,000만 원X 941.34㎡/2.404㎡), 이 사건 제2, 3토지는 91,264,143원(1억 5,000만 원X 1,462.66㎡/2,404㎡)으로 결정한 후, 2006.12.5. 원고가 이 사건 제1 토지의 매매로 338,532,143원, 이 사건 제2, 3토지의 매매로 626,735,857원의 양도차익을 각 얻고서 양도소득세를 신고하지 않았다는 이유로, 각각 2003년 귀속 양도소득세 148,092,100원 및 2006년 귀속 양도소득세 200,957,060원을 부과하였다(이하 이 사건 제1, 2처분이라 한다).

E. On February 20, 2007, the Plaintiff appealed to the Disposition No. 1 of this case on February 21, 2007, and dismissed each of the objections. However, on May 22, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on each of the appeals on May 22, 2007, but was dismissed on September 17, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 1 to 15 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

First, at the time of the purchase of the land before subdivision, the sales contract was entered as the cause of KRW 150,000,000, but this was falsely prepared upon the request of the seller ○○. Therefore, in calculating the transfer income tax of this case, 180,000,000, which is the actual purchase price, should be applied.

Second, since each of the instant lands was partitioned as a parcel after the Plaintiff acquired the land before partition, it constitutes a case where the accurate acquisition value cannot be determined. Therefore, the acquisition value should be determined by applying Article 97(1)1(c) of the Income Tax Act to the conversion price based on the officially announced land price.

Third, on September 30, 200, the Plaintiff sold 300 square meters (the corresponding part of the land No. 2 of this case) out of the pre-division to Park ○○ on September 30, 2003 to 420 million won, and the Plaintiff agreed to return 50 million won to the money received in lieu of invalidation of the sales contract with Park ○ when the Plaintiff sells the land to another place by October 20, 2003, by adding 50 million won to the money received in lieu of invalidation of the sales contract with Park ○ at a different place. After receiving 370 million won from Park ○, the Plaintiff sold the said land as an apartment site and returned 50 million won to Park ○ as promised to sell the said land as an apartment site. Therefore, from among the Plaintiff’s gains, the part of the capital gains tax should be deducted when calculating the capital gains tax.

Fourth, acquisition tax and registration tax paid by the Plaintiff when acquiring land before subdivision shall be deducted as necessary expenses when calculating the transfer margin of this case.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act

Article 100 of the Income Tax Act

Article 144 of the Income Tax Act

C. Determination

(1) As to the assertion that the acquisition price of the land before the division is KRW 180 million

As found in the above evidence, the Plaintiff consistently stated that the acquisition value of the land before subdivision was KRW 150 million from the time when the Plaintiff was investigated by the National Tax Service of Daejeon District, 206, 10,13, and the time of the instant lawsuit to the time of submission of the preparatory documents as of April 18, 2008. On the other hand, there is no evidence proving that the actual acquisition value of the land before subdivision was KRW 180,000,000.

(2) As to the proposal of the conversion value

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the acquisition value of each land of this case shall be calculated in proportion to the area of each land before subdivision inasmuch as there is sufficient evidence to prove the sales value of each land before subdivision. Therefore, there is no room for applying the conversion value under Article 97 (1) 1 (c) of the Income Tax Act.

(3) As to the assertion of deduction of KRW 50 million paid to Park ○○.

(A) The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the nature of KRW 50 million paid to Park ○○ with respect to the land of this case is an investment dividend, and thus, it should be deducted from the Plaintiff’s gains on transfer.

(B) According to the facts as seen earlier, gambling does not make an investment to the Plaintiff for a business purpose, but actually made a sales contract to acquire the above land and paid a part of the price, but it merely received an additional return of KRW 50 million, which was agreed upon as the contract becomes null and void by a special agreement. The nature of the said money is not a profit but a profit of investment, and it is not directly related to the transfer, but not a necessary expense under Article 97 of the Income Tax Act, and thus, it is not a kind of deduction from the income from transfer. Even if it was deemed that the Plaintiff had no genuine intent to purchase the land, gambling does not receive gains from transfer at a certain rate based on the mutual agreement with the Plaintiff, but it is difficult to view that it is the subject to the allocation of the transfer gains in substance, as a loan to the Plaintiff, and it is in accord with the Plaintiff’s genuine intent to pay the principal and interest of the Plaintiff later from the Plaintiff.

(4) As to the assertion that erroneous acquisition tax and registration tax should be deducted

According to the above evidence, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the amount of acquisition tax, registration tax, and local education tax imposed on the area of 30 forest land, 298 square meters, which is identical to that of the land before subdivision, is divided in proportion to the area of the land before subdivision, and the necessary expenses of the instant land No. 1, 4,181,97, and 6,498,013 as necessary expenses for the instant land

(5) Each disposition of this case is lawful, and the plaintiff's assertion disputing this disposition is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.