2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On December 20, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract of KRW 000 for the purchase price and paid KRW 000 for the same day the down payment on the same day, on the condition that the non-party company was awarded the bid for the instant real estate with the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") in the auction procedure with the non-party XX VI-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, where the auction procedure is in progress.

B. On July 26, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the right of a purchaser of the instant real estate to Nonparty Song-A at KRW 000 of the transfer price (hereinafter “the transfer price”); (b) on July 27, 2007, KRW 000 of the transfer price; (c) on March 30, 2007, KRW 00 of the deposit money for provisional seizure of the instant real estate, and KRW 00 of the deposit money for provisional seizure of the instant real estate, until March 30, 2007; and (d) on August 31, 2007, the remainder amount of KRW 00 shall be received until August 31, 2007; and (e) concluded a contract under the said contract that Song-A establishes the first priority collective security (including the deposit money) with the Plaintiff as a mortgagee; and (e) requested a change in the name of the purchaser of the instant real estate in accordance with the said contract.

C. On August 1, 2010, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the right to acquire the instant real estate in KRW 000, and transferred the transfer value to KRW 000,000; and (b) determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 (including additional taxes) of the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2007.

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 9, 201 on November 1, 201, but the appeal was dismissed on September 30, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Of the transfer proceeds of this case, 000 won, which was not received, is an unrecoverable claim, and the disposition of this case was unlawful since the taxable income was calculated including it.

B. Determination

(1) The Income Tax Act, even if there is no actual income, adopts the so-called principle of confirmation of the right to taxable income by deeming that the right that is the cause of the income has become final and conclusive, and adopting the so-called principle of confirmation of the right to taxable income. However, even if a claim that is the cause of income has arisen, if it is objectively evident that the claim subject to income subject to income becomes impossible to recover due to the debtor's bankruptcy, etc. and that the future income is no longer feasible, the income tax on such economic gains should lose its premise, and such income cannot be imposed on taxable income. However, the issue of whether the claim is impossible to recover shall be determined by an objective method of assessment by taking into account the debtor's financial situation and payment ability based on the specific transaction details and the subsequent circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7176, Dec. 26, 2003).

(2) In this case, the issue is whether the claim of KRW 000 which was not paid out of the transfer proceeds of this case is an unrecoverable claim, and the following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 3, 5, 7, and 12, and evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including each number).

(A) On March 30, 2007, the non-party company acquired the ownership of the instant real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of Song on July 31, 2007. However, Song on the same day, the non-party company set up the first priority collective security right, each of which consists of the maximum debt amount of the instant real estate, KRW 00, the maximum debt amount of the instant real estate, KRW 00, K Union of the mortgagee, the maximum debt amount, KRW 000, the maximum debt amount of the mortgage, KRW 00, the YA, and KRW 00, the maximum debt amount of the instant real estate, KRW 200, the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security, and KRW 30,000, the right to collateral security, re-established on August 17, 2007, KRW 20, the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security, and KRW 30,007, the Plaintiff on August 17, 2007.

(B) Subsequent to October 30, 2008, the auction procedure for the real estate of this case was initiated in the Incheon District Court 2008tata, 53074, and the above case was decided on June 21, 2012 to be sold at KRW 000,000, and the amount to be actually distributed on August 23, 2012 was completed by distributing KRW 000,000 to the OAF (a total of 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00, for each of the loans (a total of 000,000,000,000,000,000).

(C) In the real estate auction case involving the mortgagee mentioned in the preceding paragraph and the Plaintiff, there are ParkD (total sum of the principal and interest of the Promissory Notes), E (total sum of KRW 000), KoreaB (total sum of principal and interest of the bonds), and KimCC (total sum of KRW 000).

(D) Meanwhile, under the trade name of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of Licensed Real Estate Agents in Y 337, the Song-gu reported the real estate brokerage business of KRW 000 of the income amount in 2010 and KRW 000 of the value-added tax sales amount in 1, 2011. However, on June 15, 2012, Song-A discontinued this business. On October 31, 2008, a credit information company such as the SS Assessment Information Company, etc., was a customer who delayed the principal and interest of the loans of the HH Credit Cooperative for more than three months, and on April 1, 2009, each credit information was registered as a customer who did not pay national taxes for more than one year from the date on which national taxes were in arrears and whose amount in arrears is more than 00 won.

(3) According to the above facts, while the amount of the unpaid debt of the Song in this case exceeds the total of 000 won, the real estate already sold and other assets owned by the Song-A are not found in addition to the real estate agent office that has already discontinued the real estate in this case and the real estate agent office that has already discontinued the business, or that the Song-A is engaged in other business. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view the unpaid claim of KRW 00 out of the transfer proceeds in this case as an unre

(4) Therefore, the disposition of this case rendered by the Defendant in a different manner is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.