Plaintiff ○○

Defendant ○ Head of tax office

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

A. On December 30, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired a total of 28,247 square meters of land in attached Form 10, including 00,000 square meters in the name of thisA, 00,000 ○○○ Dong, 2,000,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On August 28, 2003, the registration of the creation of a mortgage on the instant land was made on August 28, 2003, KRW 600,000,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,

C. After that, on Sep. 13, 2007, JungB had voluntarily decided to commence the auction of the instant land on Nov. 26, 2007 by recovering the registration of creation of a collateral on the instant land and filing an application for voluntary auction on Nov. 26, 2007. Accordingly, the Plaintiff agreed on Jan. 29, 2008 between △△△△ District Court and △△△△△, 13140,000. The Plaintiff paid KRW 510,000,000 to the Plaintiff to withdraw the said voluntary auction. After paying the said KRW 510,000,000, JungB withdrawn the application for auction on Jan. 29, 2008, and on Feb. 1, 2008, the registration of establishment of a collateral security was cancelled.

D. Meanwhile, on November 8, 2007, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract to transfer the instant land to one other than the JejuCC and one other. On February 26, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land to the non-resident and one other.

E. On April 21, 2008, the Plaintiff made a preliminary return and payment of KRW 209,757,600 as transfer income tax calculated by adding the said KRW 510,000 to the necessary expenses, based on the transfer value of the instant land to KRW 1.4 billion and the acquisition value of KRW 486,460,00.

F. However, on February 2, 2009, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiff for correction and notification of the transfer income tax of KRW 3.6 million to the Plaintiff for the reverted portion in 2008, by calculating the transfer margin without deducting it as necessary expenses under the Income Tax Act.

[Basis] Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Evidence Nos. 4-1, 4-2, Evidence Nos. 5-1, 6, 7, and 8-2, Evidence Nos. 1, 11-2, Evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-3, Evidence Nos. 5-1, 3-2, 5-1, 2, 5-2, 7-1, 2, and 3 of Evidence Nos. 6-1, 7-1, 2, and 3 of Evidence No. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether a disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

510,000 million won paid by the Plaintiff to JungB constitutes necessary expenses for the following reasons: Article 97 (1) 1 (a) of the Income Tax Act and Article 163 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same) since the Plaintiff’s disposal of transferred assets constitutes “reconciliation cost directly required to secure ownership, etc.” or “reconciliation cost directly required to secure ownership, etc.” under Article 97 (1) 2 of the Income Tax Act and Article 163 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 163 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, in the event

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

First of all, in light of the provisions of Article 97 of the Income Tax Act and Article 163 (3) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, in cases where a lawsuit is instituted after acquiring transferred assets, the costs of lawsuit and reconciliation incurred directly in order to secure the ownership of the transferred assets can be deducted as necessary expenses of the transferred assets. However, even if the expenses paid in connection with the dispute over the assets in question are those not directly related to the acquisition of ownership, such expenses as the cost of lawsuit and reconciliation that are not directly related

According to the above facts, as the plaintiff acquired the land of this case and there was a dispute over the land of this case between EB and EB, and as a result, it was faced with the situation that the ownership of the land of this case would be lost in the auction procedure executed based on the recovered collateral security right, the plaintiff paid 510 million won to EB and secured the ownership of the land of this case. Thus, the above 510 million won is the "reconciliation cost spent directly to secure the ownership" under Article 163 (3) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and the "reconciliation cost spent to secure the ownership" under Article 97 of the Income Tax Act, which constitutes necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value when calculating the gains on transfer under Article 97 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, this part

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, based on the premise that the above KRW 510 million does not constitute necessary expenses, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the remaining arguments of the plaintiff are cited without having to be examined separately.