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

(a) Transfer of real estate and reporting and payment of capital gains tax;

원고는 1998. 4. 9. 아산시 배방면 0000 임야 7，062㎡， 같은 리 000 임야 2，358㎡， 같은 리 00 임야 20㎡， 같은 리 0000 임야 32㎡ 합계 9，472㎡와 같은 리 000 지상 무허가 주택 190㎡， 무허가 창고 148㎡을 취득하였다(이하 위 부동산을 통틀어 '이 사건 부동산'이라 하고， 토지를 개별적으로 지칭할 때는 'OO리 000 임야'와 같은 방식으로 하며， 무허가 주택과 창고를 통칭하여 '이 사건 건물'이라 하고， 개별적으로 지칭할 때는 '이 사건 주택'과 같은 방식으로 한다). 원고는 2008. 10. 2. 대한예수교장로회 EE교회(이하 'EE교회'라 한다)에 이 사건 부동산을 000원에 양도하고，2008. 12. 대지조성 공사비 등 000 원을 필요경비로 산정하여 양도소득세 0000원을 신고・납부하였다

B. Disposition by the defendant and the plaintiff's request for examination

The Defendant recognized only KRW 000,000 among the necessary expenses reported by the Plaintiff as necessary expenses, and imposed capital gains tax of KRW 000 on June 1, 2010. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for an examination with the Board of Audit and Inspection on July 27, 2010, and was dismissed on December 27, 2010.

C. The defendant's primary reduction and correction disposition

The Defendant, at the time of the disposition, excluded the 148 square meters of the instant warehouse from the one house area for one household subject to exemption from capital gains tax, and recognized only 190 square meters of housing area and 1,90 square meters of the land annexed to a house (10 times of the housing area) as non-taxation subject to non-taxation. However, pursuant to Article 154(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Defendant deemed the entire area of the instant house and warehouse as the entire area of the instant building as the housing area, and calculated 338 square meters of the entire area of the instant building and 3,380 square meters of the land annexed to a house (10 times of the housing area) as one house for one household subject to exemption from capital gains tax. The Defendant confirmed the above error and decided to reduce the amount of non-taxation subject to capital gains tax on March 26, 2012.

D. The defendant's second reduction or correction disposition

Pursuant to Article 100(2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same), the Defendant confirmed that the transfer value should be divided in the case of the transfer of land and a building together, but did not distinguish between the transfer value of the building and the land from the initial disposition, and determined the non-taxation amount on the house and appurtenant land by becoming aware of the transfer value of the instant real estate in proportion to the standard market price of the instant real estate as follows. The Defendant determined the tax exemption amount on the instant real estate by acquiring the transfer value of the instant real estate in proportion to the calculated market price of the instant real estate. Based on the above calculated transfer value, the Defendant decided to additionally reduce the amount to be exempted as one house for one household on May 24, 2013 (i.e., the transfer value of the house + 000 won in the warehouse transfer value + 000 won in the warehouse value of the appurtenant land to a house (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The whole purport of the arguments, as described in the facts without dispute, Gap 7, Eul 9, and Eul 1 through 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16 (including, if any, location numbers, and hereinafter the same shall apply).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) As to the transfer value of the instant real estate and the amount subject to non-taxation on one house per household

The Plaintiff sold the instant real estate at the time of selling 00 won, and the OO00 woodland and its ground buildings (hereinafter “the instant 00 real estate”), while selling 00 won, sold 00 won per 00 US Ri, and O00-2 forest and O00-3 forest and land for 000 won per 00 won. Meanwhile, the standard market price based on the officially assessed land price of O00 forest and land is 00 won (=7,062 x00 square meters), and the standard market price publicly notified by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for the instant building is 00 won, and 00 won for warehouse and 000 won for warehouse and 000 won for warehouse and 000 won for each of the instant real estate and 000 won for warehouse and 000 won for warehouse and 000 won for each of the instant real estate and 000 O.

(2) As to the acquisition value of the instant real estate

At the time of reporting and paying the transfer income tax on the instant real estate, the Plaintiff reported the acquisition value of the instant real estate as KRW 000,000,000 for three parcels, other than OO 000,000. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid and received 000,000 won for the instant housing and warehouse. The Plaintiff’s acquisition value of the instant real estate is KRW 000,000. However, the Defendant calculated the acquisition value of the instant real estate without reasonable grounds, and the instant disposition was unlawful.

(3) As to the construction cost for housing site creation among the necessary expenses for the instant real estate

The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the FF Construction Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “FF Construction”) and paid KRW 000 as the construction cost in relation to the instant real estate construction project. However, the Defendant calculated capital gains by deeming only KRW 00 of the said construction cost as necessary expenses, and the instant disposition is unlawful.

(4) As to the registration tax, acquisition tax, and litigation costs of the instant real property

In addition, the Defendant did not recognize the registration tax and acquisition tax of KRW 000,000 paid by the Plaintiff at the time of acquiring land among the instant real estate. Moreover, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Cho Jung-won on the building among the instant real estate as the litigation cost by filing a lawsuit for the removal of buildings and the claim for delivery of land with the Daejeon District Court Branch of the Daejeon District Court (2002Gadan25460), and the Defendant did not recognize this as the necessary expense even though the said litigation cost is recognized as the necessary expense. Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful, since

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) 이 사건 부동산의 양도가액과 1세대 1주택 비과세 대상 금액에 관한 판단 갑 14， 18호증， 을 3호증의 각 기재에 의하면， 원고가 이 사건 부동산을 매도하면서 이 사건 000 부동산을 000원에 매도하는 내용의 매매계약서와 나머지 부동산을 000원에 매도하는 내용의 매매계약서를 별도로 작성한 사실， 원고가 2009. 5. 20. EE교회에게 아산시 배방읍 OO리 000-1 임야 585㎡， 같은 리 000-4 임야 284㎡， 같은 리 1038 임야 3，597㎡을 '수증인인 EE교회가 제반세금을 부담하고， 위 각 부동산에 설정된 근저당권의 피담보채무를 변제하는 조건으로' 증여하기도 한 사실， 원고가 2004. 8.경 둔포농업협동조합으로부터 대출을 받기 위해 이 사건 부동산 중 각 토지들이 분할되기 전의 아산시 0000 임야 13，938㎡에 대한 감정평가를 실시하였는데， 위 임야 중 건축허가를 득한 7，486㎡의 경우 ㎡당 000원으로 평가 된 반면， 건축허가가 제외된 임야 부분 6，292㎡는 ㎡당 0000원으로 평가된 사실이 각 인정된다. 그러나 앞서 든 각 증거와 을 3， 10， 11호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정， 즉 이 사건 부동산 중 이 사건 000 부동산과 나머지 부동산에 관한 매매계약은 모두 2008. 9. 30.에 체결되었고， 거래가격계는 000원으로서， 계약금 000원， 중도금 000원， 잔금 000원이며， 특히 잔금지급일 및 부동산 명도일도 2008. 10. 2.로 동일한 점， 이 사건 부동산에 관한 토지거래계약허가증 허가사항란에는 이 사건 부동산 전체에 관한 매매에 의한 소유권이전이 대상권리로，000원이 예정금액으로 각 기재되어 있고， 이 사건 부동산의 등기부등본의 매매목록에도 이 사건 부동산 전체가 함께 기재 되어 있는 점， 이 사건 부동산의 전체 면적 중 이 사건 000 부동산의 면적은 75% 정도인 반면， 별도로 기재된 매매계약서의 내용에 따르면 이 사건 부동산의 전체가액 중 이 사건 000 부동산의 가액은 89%에 달하는 점， 한편 OO리 000 임야의 2008. 1. 1. 공시지가는 000원인데， 이는 OO리 0000-1 임야의 000원보다 낮은 점， 공수리 000 임야와 OO리 0000-1 임야 모두 그 현황이 대지인 점 등을 종합하여 보면，이 사건 부동산은 일괄하여 양도되었고， 다만 비과세대상 금액을 증가시키기 위하여 이 사건 000 부동산의 가액을 높게 책정한 별도의 계약서를 작성한 것으로 보인다. 따라서， 이 사건 부동산은 일괄하여 000원에 양도되었다고 봄이 상당 하므로， 이 사건 부동산의 양도가액 중 1세대 1주택 비과세 대상 금액을 산정하면서 위 000원을 전체 양도금액으로 보아 이 사건 부동산의 각 기준시가에 비례 하여 이 사건 부동산 중 건물과 토지의 양도가액을 안분계산한 이 사건 처분은 적법하고，이와 다른 전제에 선 원고의 이 부분 주장은 더 나아가 살필 필요 없이 이유 없다.

(2) Determination as to the calculation of acquisition value

The Plaintiff reported the acquisition value of the instant real estate to 00 won at the time of reporting and paying the transfer income tax on the instant real estate (=(= 000 square meters x 9,342 square meters / 13,488 square meters prior to division) + acquisition tax and 000 won). If the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for removal of the instant real estate and delivery under the Daejeon District Court Branch 2002Ga25460, and filed a lawsuit for the claim for the transfer of the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff received non-taxation and storage of the instant real estate from Professor around 2003, while the Defendant did not deduct the acquisition value of the instant real estate from the acquisition value of the instant non-taxation and storage, on the other hand, it is reasonable to calculate the acquisition value of the non-taxation and storage of the instant real estate from 00,000 won, which is calculated on the basis of the actual acquisition value of the instant real estate, on the other hand, the Defendant did not calculate the acquisition value of the instant real land from 000, without deducting the acquisition value.

(3) Determination as to the construction cost of housing site creation among necessary expenses

First, with respect to the assertion that the Plaintiff paid the total construction cost of KRW 000 to the real estate in this case to the FF industry development, it is difficult to believe it as it is, and there is no other evidence to support it, and there is no reason to view this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

(4) Determination of registration tax and acquisition tax among necessary expenses

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1, 8, and 16, and the defendant's disposition in this case, 000 won calculated by the acquisition price (= acquisition price of 000 won - acquisition price of - acquisition price of 000 won falling under the portion subject to non-taxation) and registration tax and acquisition tax of 000 won (= acquisition tax and acquisition tax - acquisition tax on the total acquisition price of the portion subject to non-taxation - acquisition tax and acquisition tax 0000 won on the acquisition price of the portion subject to non-taxation - acquisition tax and acquisition tax on the portion subject to non-taxation) are recognized. According to the above facts, the disposition in this case is legitimate, and the disposition in this case calculated by deducting only the remainder of registration tax and acquisition tax on the portion other than the portion subject to non-taxation of one house among the acquisition tax and acquisition tax paid while acquiring the real estate in this case, and the plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

(5) Determination as to the costs of lawsuit among necessary expenses

As seen earlier, in calculating the transfer income amount, if the portion corresponding to the non-taxation of one house for one household was deducted from the transfer value, and the necessary expenses concerning the non-taxation of one house for one household are also excluded from the necessary expenses. However, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Cho Jung-bu for removal of the building and the claim for transfer of the land under the Daejeon District Court Decision 2002Gadan25460, Daejeon District Court Branch Office 2002Gadan25460, the Plaintiff is about the instant building and its appurtenant land subject to non-taxation as one house for one household among the real estate cases, and the lawsuit costs are not recognized as necessary expenses in calculating the transfer income of the real estate. Therefore, in calculating the transfer income, the instant disposition that did not recognize the above litigation costs as necessary expenses is lawful, and

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.