2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 5 minutes of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff, and the remainder are assessed against the defendant.

A. On February 20, 1990, the Plaintiff’s husband’s RedA purchased three parcels of land, such as ○○○○○-dong 238-3, 5, and 6, and purchased each unit of land, etc., and removed the said parcels of land. On July 21, 1991, the Plaintiff newly constructed a building of 1,214.63 square meters (hereinafter “the instant building”) on the ground of 423 square meters of the said three lots of land (hereinafter “the instant land”). Meanwhile, on November 6, 1990 and around October 15, 1999, the said three lots of land was combined into the instant land of ○○○-dong 238-3, 423 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”). The Plaintiff acquired the instant land and the instant building’s real estate deposit from 00 million won (hereinafter “the instant real estate deposit”) and the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate on June 19, 1998.

C. On May 15, 2002, the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to BB and one other. On May 31, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a final return on the tax base of transfer income with the content that the transfer value is KRW 1,360,00,000, acquisition value is KRW 1,297,127,200, and other necessary expenses are calculated as KRW 140,158,279, and there is no capital gains.

D. Accordingly, on April 14, 2008, the Defendant calculated the real estate value of this case as KRW 1,750,00,00 as actual transfer value, and the acquisition value shall be calculated by dividing the real estate value of this case into the portion equivalent to KRW 360,000,00 for the repayment obligation of the deposit for lease acquired by the Plaintiff on the ground that the donation of this case is an onerous donation (hereinafter referred to as the "debted portion") and the revenue and gift (hereinafter referred to as the "increased portion") except this, on the ground that it cannot be recognized or confirmed as the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition by contract, books or other documentary evidence, and calculated the acquisition value of this case as KRW 360,00,00 as the actual transfer value, and the acquisition value of this case shall be calculated by applying Article 28-16, subparagraph 25, Article 27, subparagraph 16, Article 20, subparagraph 3, Article 27, subparagraph 15, Article 27, subparagraph 2, subparagraph 5, of the former Enforcement Decree (amended.).

· The acquisition value of the instant real property 1,352,697,965 won

0

529,991,565 won converted into the amount of debt to be borne

0

822,706,400 won for conversion value of the portion of revenue and expenditure (hereinafter the same shall apply).

0

[Grounds for recognition] Class A, Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Since the acquisition value of the increased portion may be recognized as 1,297,127,200 won at the time of acquisition of the increased portion by the books related to real estate rental business, it is erroneous for the Defendant to calculate the acquisition value of the increased portion by the converted value of the increased portion, which is the actual transaction value. Even though the acquisition value of the increased portion should be calculated by the converted value, the standard market value at the time of acquisition, which is the basis for calculating the converted value, should be computed by aggregating the standard market value of the land before the merger and the standard market value of the removed building, but it was erroneous for the Defendant to calculate the increased portion of the acquisition value by only the standard market value at the time of acquisition of the land. In addition, since the Plaintiff’s husband RedA newly constructed the building of this case, which is commercial building by acquiring the above three parcels of land before the initial merger, and de facto converting the above three parcels of land into one complex, it shall be deemed that the acquisition value of the previous three parcels of land was the commercial site at the time of the annexation, and thus, it shall be calculated individually based on the average individual land price of this case.

(2) In disposing of the instant real estate, the Defendant paid KRW 200,000,00 among the KRW 1,750,000,00 as the actual transfer value of the instant real estate by the assignee BB, etc. at the time of transfer by the lessee who had been operating the announced source in the instant building at the time of transfer. As such, the actual transfer value of the instant real estate shall not be deemed the transfer value of the instant real estate. Therefore, the actual transfer value of the instant real estate shall be deemed the said KRW 1,550,000 (i.e., KRW 1,750,000,000 - KRW 200,000).

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Acquisition value of the instant real estate

(A) Acquisition by an onerous donation

The Plaintiff received the instant real estate from HongA on November 9, 1998, and acquired KRW 360 million for the obligation to return the lease deposit, and the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate on May 15, 2002, as seen above. Thus, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have acquired and possessed the instant real estate as a gift with a charge-bearing share, and thus, transferred it.

However, the latter part of Article 88(1) of the former Income Tax Act provides that "where a donee takes over any obligation of a donor in an onerous donation, the part equivalent to the amount of such obligation in the donation amount shall be deemed to be actually transferred for price." The former part of Article 97(4) of the same Act provides that in calculating gains on transfer of assets under Article 94(1)1 donated by the spouse within five years retroactively from the date of transfer, necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value shall be subject to paragraph (3) of the same Article, and the acquisition value shall be the amount under each item of paragraph (1) 1 at the time of the acquisition by the spouse.

According to the above provisions and the facts of recognition, the acquisition value to be deducted from the transfer value of the Plaintiff’s real estate in calculating gains from the transfer of the real estate of this case shall be calculated by adding up the acquisition value of the portion of liabilities acquired by the Plaintiff for compensation and the increased portion acquired through the donation, respectively, after separately calculating the acquisition value of the portion of liabilities acquired by the Plaintiff among the real estate value of this case. Meanwhile, the acquisition value of the portion of liabilities to be borne shall be calculated as of

(B) Acquisition value of the share of debt

1) Article 159 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "The acquisition value and transfer value in the calculation of gains on transfer of the portions to be deemed a transfer in onerous donation under the latter part of Article 88 (1) of the Act shall be the value calculated by multiplying the value of the relevant assets under Articles 96 and 97 (1) 1 of the Act by the ratio of the portions equivalent to the amount of debts to the value of donations." According to Articles 96 and 97 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act, the transfer value and acquisition value of land and buildings shall, in principle, be based on the standard market price, but the actual transaction value at the time of transfer and at the time of acquisition shall be based on the standard market price if the transferor has kept evidential documents within the final return period of transfer income and tax amount, and Article 176-2 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall not be known at the time of acquisition, and where the acquisition value can be calculated as one of the actual transaction values acquired in the assets before acquisition date.

Therefore, in order to impose the tax on real estate subject to the standard market price taxation principle under Article 96 (1) 6 of the former Income Tax Act as the actual transaction price, all the actual transaction price at the time of transfer and acquisition should be confirmed. If the actual transaction price is not confirmed at the time of acquisition, except the real estate acquired before January 1, 197, the date of fictitious acquisition under Article 8 of Addenda of the Income Tax Act (Act No. 4803), Article 176-2 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act, which is the date of fictitious acquisition under

2) Examining the purport of Gap evidence 5 and Eul evidence 5 and Eul evidence 6's evidence 2. On February 5, 199: the plaintiff reported the gift tax of this case to the defendant on February 5, 199: 5,20,00 won (based on November 10, 198) and 591,500 won (based on December 17, 1998), calculated the value of the real estate of this case to 209,70,000 won, 70,000 won, 70,000 won, 70,000 won, 70,000 won, 70,000 won, 16,000 won, 20,000 won, 30,000 won, 16,06,000 won, 20,000 won, 30,000 won, 16,06,000 won, 16,05,06,06,

According to the provisions of the former Income Tax Act and the above facts, so long as it is deemed that the portion of debt burden among the real estate in this case is transferred underground as seen above, it is difficult to calculate the acquisition value of the portion of debt burden by applying Article 163(9) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. Since the Plaintiff acquired the real estate in this case through an onerous donation on November 9, 1998, the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of the portion of debt burden cannot be deemed to exist. Thus, the acquisition value of the real estate in this case at the time of donation shall be calculated by multiplying the value of the real estate in this case by the ratio of the portion equivalent to the amount of debt to the standard market value at the time of donation as the standard market value at that time of donation as the value of the real estate in this case is KRW 1,221,98,716, which is assessed by the supplementary evaluation method of the

Therefore, the acquisition value of the portion of the obligation of the instant real estate is KRW 359,62,056 [The Plaintiff’s acquisition price = KRW 1,221,98,716 won X360,000 at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition [1,223,272,960].

(C) Acquisition value of the increased portion

1) Since the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate from HongA, her husband, by means of a gift with a share of expenses, on November 9, 1998, and transferred the instant real estate around May 15, 2002, within five years thereafter, on or around May 15, 2002, pursuant to Article 97(4) of the former Income Tax Act, the acquisition value of the portion of the premium to be deducted from the transfer value shall be calculated on the basis of the acquisition value at the time of the acquisition by HongA.

2) Furthermore, we examine the acquisition value at the time of acquisition by the HongA.

As seen above, in order to impose the tax on real estate subject to the principle of assessment of the standard market price under Article 96 (1) 6 of the former Income Tax Act as the actual transaction price, all the actual transaction price at the time of transfer and acquisition shall be confirmed. If the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition is not verified, except the real estate acquired before January 1, 197, which is the date of acquisition of conversion under Article 8 of Addenda of the Income Tax Act (Act No. 4803), Article 176-2 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and it shall

According to the evidence Nos. 22-1 through 4, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff prepared a concurrent contract with the purport that the Plaintiff purchased the land and the existing building on the land 238-3 and its ground before the merger in 205,00,000,000,000 won in aggregate, 238-5, and 238-6 of the same Act and the existing building on the land 158,00,000, and that the land and the existing building on the ground were purchased in 158,00,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the above land. However, the entries of evidence Nos. 23 through 39 alone are insufficient to determine the actual cost of the construction of the building in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Accordingly, the actual acquisition value of the real estate in this case at the time of acquisition by HongA cannot be deemed as 1,297,127,200,000 won as the standard market value at the time of acquisition.

3) The Plaintiff asserts that, with respect to the assessment of the standard market price at the time of acquisition by HongA, the land of the above three parcels should be calculated on the basis of the individual land price published on January 1, 1991 in the vicinity of the land similar thereto, by deeming it as the commercial land of the said three parcels before the annexation as one

According to the above evidence and evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 41-4, and 42-1 and 2, the above three parcels of land and the existing buildings on each of the above three parcels of land at the time of the annexation are acquired by HongA, and their owners are different, and the above three parcels of land before the annexation are acquired by another owner, and the facts of constructing the building of this case can be acknowledged after the HongA acquired the above three parcels of land before the annexation on February 20, 1990 by obtaining a construction permit on March 3, 1990. The above statements in Gap evidence Nos. 40-1 through 3, 41-4, 41-1 and 42-1 and 2 cannot be viewed as land before the annexation. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be viewed as land for the use of the above three parcels of land before the annexation at the time of the annexation. Thus, the above plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4) However, in order for HongA to construct a new building on the ground of the above three parcels prior to annexation around February 20, 1990, the fact that the previous building was built on the land of the said three parcels after acquiring the land of the said three parcels and the existing buildings on the said three parcels after removing the existing buildings. As seen above, in the instant case, in order to remove the existing building from the initial acquisition date to construct a new building on the said land and the new building on the ground, the land of the said three parcels and the new building on the said land were built to be constructed together with the new building on the said land within a short time period after the acquisition date, the purpose of the person who acquired the land and the existing building on the said ground is to acquire and use the land is to acquire and use the land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu7399, Sept. 8, 1992), it is reasonable to compute the acquisition price of the existing building on the land of the said three parcels including the standard market price at the time of construction (see, e.g.

5) According to the statements in Eul evidence No. 4 and the above evidence, the above three parcels of land, the existing building and the building of this case are 824,510,419 won (=the aggregate of the standard market price of the above three parcels of land and the building of this case + 791,065,983 won of the standard market price of the existing building + 33,444,436 won of the standard market price of the existing building) at the time of acquisition of the above three parcels of land and the building of this case. Meanwhile, the acquisition price of the real estate of this case is the remainder calculated by multiplying the standard market price of this case by the ratio occupied by the portion equivalent to the amount equivalent to the debt amount among the donated value of the above standard market price at the time of acquisition by HongA.

(2) Transfer value of the instant real estate

Article 100(1) of the former Income Tax Act provides for the same standard when the transfer value is based on the actual transaction price (including the sale price, appraisal price, and conversion price, etc.) in calculating gains on transfer, the acquisition price shall also be based on the actual transaction price (including the sale price, appraisal price, and conversion price, etc.) and the acquisition price shall also be based on the standard market price when the transfer value is based on the standard market price. In addition, as seen above, where the tax is imposed on the assets subject to the standard market price principle pursuant to Article 96(1)6 of the former Income Tax Act on the grounds as seen above, it is possible only if the actual transaction price is confirmed at the time of transfer or acquisition, and where any one of the actual transaction prices at the time of transfer or

Therefore, even if it is possible to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of the transfer of the instant real estate, the acquisition price is to be calculated based on the standard market price because the actual transaction price at the time of the acquisition cannot be confirmed as seen above. Thus, in calculating the transfer margin of the instant real estate, the transfer price shall be determined based on the standard market price without any need to view the actual transaction price. The fact that the standard market price at the time of the transfer of the instant real estate is 1,187,4

(3) Justifiable tax amount

(A) According to Article 97(4) of the former Income Tax Act, in case where a resident transfers the real estate donated by his spouse within five years retroactively from the date of transfer, the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value in calculating gains on the transfer of the relevant asset shall be in accordance with Article 97(3) of the same Act, and in case where there is an amount equivalent to the gift tax paid or payable on the donated assets, the necessary expenses shall be included in the necessary expenses, notwithstanding Article 97(3) of the same Act. Therefore, even in

According to the above evidence, the amount equivalent to the gift tax paid or to be paid by the Plaintiff among the instant real estate constitutes 61,720,822. Thus, the amount equivalent to the gift tax should be deducted from the transfer value of the instant real estate as necessary expenses.

(B) The reasonable amount of capital gains tax on the transfer of the instant real estate shall be calculated as KRW 48,658,388 according to the details of calculation of the attached tax according to the acquisition value, transfer value, necessary expenses, etc. of the instant real estate as seen above

Ultimately, the instant disposition is lawful within the scope of KRW 48,658,388 of the legitimate capital gains tax, and is unlawful in excess of the above amount.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part exceeding KRW 48,658,388 of the disposition of this case is revoked, and the remainder of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.