2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

A. On November 26, 1990, the Plaintiff acquired 45,476 square meters of land in South-gu, Nam-gu and 000 m26,056 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land for factory”) and 12 m3,000 m2,000 m2,000, and 45,476 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land for factory.” After that, when referring to the instant land for factory and the instant other land, hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”). Then, 7 m2 were newly constructed on the instant land, while conducting manufacturing business and real estate leasing business, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land and its above-ground buildings to 00 won on August 21, 2008.

B. On October 29, 2008, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 000 of the transfer income tax for the year 2008, by making the transfer value of the instant land and buildings on its ground as KRW 000, and the acquisition value as KRW 000 (converted value) to the Defendant.

C. However, on December 7, 2009, the Defendant deemed the acquisition value of the instant land and buildings thereon as KRW 000 (the actual transaction price for the land, and the conversion price for the building), and deemed the instant other land as the non-business land, and accordingly, increased the capital gains tax amount of KRW 000 for the year 2008 (hereinafter “the initial disposition”).

D. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the initial disposition of this case, and the decision that the other land of this case is not a non-business land was made in the appeal, and the defendant corrected the transfer income tax to 000 won (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff acquired the land of this case from the Korea Land Corporation in an amount of KRW 000, and obtained permission for use before completing the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff, and obtained permission for use from March 28, 1990 to November 25, 1990. This is the amount equivalent to capital expenditures included in the acquisition value, and the acquisition value of the land of this case shall be calculated based on the conversion value of the land of this case as it constitutes a case where the acquisition value is unclear due to lack of evidence (main assertion). In addition, according to the appraisal entrustment with the appraiserCC, according to the result of the appraisal entrustment with the appraiserCC, the land-based construction cost for the land of this case was required in an amount of KRW 00,00, and thus, the above amount should be deducted from the necessary expenses (preliminary assertion). Accordingly, the disposition of this case reported otherwise is unlawful (preliminary assertion).

(2) The defendant's assertion

It cannot be said that the acquisition value of the instant land is unclear as the acquisition value is confirmed as 000 won, and the land-based construction cost for the instant land for a factory is the capital expenditure, which is necessary expenses, and the verification of the capital expenditure is required by the Plaintiff, and the capital expenditure cannot be deducted from the necessary expenses by calculating the capital expenditure by the method of appraisal.

(b) Facts of recognition and relevant statutes;

(1) On May 21, 1987, the Plaintiff sold the instant land from the Korea Land Corporation in lots at KRW 000, and on March 28, 1990, upon obtaining prior permission for use of the instant land from March 28, 1990 to November 25, 1990, the Plaintiff performed a land-based construction project, such as banking and landing machines, floor packing works, drainage and stone-building works, retaining walls, etc. (hereinafter “the instant land-based construction”).

(2) The construction cost required by the Plaintiff for the instant land-based construction project is a total of 000 won (the construction cost for the instant land-based construction project + the floor packing construction cost + the floor packing construction cost of 000 + drainage and water supply cost of 000 won + the retaining wall construction cost of 000 won).

(3) On November 26, 1990, the Plaintiff registered the transfer of ownership under the name of the Plaintiff, and newly constructed seven factory buildings on the land for the instant case from November 26, 1990 to March 5, 2002, and conducted manufacturing business and real estate leasing business.

(4) On August 21, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land and buildings to KRW 000.

(5) The relevant laws and regulations are as listed in the relevant laws and regulations.

[Reasons for Recognition] The above evidence, the result of the appraisal commission to the appraiser UCC by this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) Whether the acquisition value of the instant land should be converted into the converted value (main assertion)

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land from the Korea Land Corporation in lots in KRW 000, and that the instant land-based construction cost constitutes capital expenditures that are deducted as necessary expenses, as seen earlier. Therefore, it cannot be said that the acquisition value of the instant land is unclear.

Therefore, on a different premise, the prior plaintiff's assertion on this part (main assertion) is without merit.

(2) Whether the instant land-based construction cost can be deducted from the necessary expenses

Capital expenditures included in necessary expenses of transferred assets refer to expenses, etc. incurred for the purpose of use, improvement or use of the relevant transferred assets (see, e.g., Article 97 of the Income Tax Act and Article 163 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act), and since the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of taxation, in principle, necessary expenses that are the basis of determining taxable income also are the burden of proving. However, since the tax authority is favorable to the taxpayer and the basic materials are within the control area of the taxpayer, and it is difficult for the taxpayer to prove the necessary expenses, the tax authority shall return the necessity of proving to the taxpayer: Provided, That where it is reasonable to prove the necessary expenses in light of the difficulty of proof or the equity between the parties, if it is evident that the occurrence of necessary expenses in light of the empirical rule is evident or it is impossible for the tax authority to investigate the necessary expenses, the tax authority must prove the amount to the extent that it can be calculated by the method of estimated investigation, and where the taxpayer claims necessary expenses more than this, the tax authority needs to prove to the taxpayer (see, e.g.

In this case, according to the facts of the above recognition, the plaintiff purchased the land in this case from the Korea Land Corporation, and brought a considerable amount of the land-based construction work in this case with the consent of the Korea Land Corporation, a seller, before completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the plaintiff (the amount exceeding the purchase price of the land in this case). The construction cost of the land in this case shall be 00 won in total. In addition, the plaintiff purchased the land in this case for the purpose of running the stone manufacturing business. In order to build a building for the above business, the land-based construction work such as embling work and terter, floor packing work, drainage work, stone construction work, retaining wall construction work, etc. In light of the fact that the plaintiff actually performed the above land-based construction work, it is reasonable to deem that the land-based construction cost in this case constitutes capital expenditures that are deducted as necessary expenses for convenient use and improvement of the land in this case.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the necessary expenses for capital expenditures shall be proved by the Plaintiff, and that the value of the capital expenditures shall be calculated by means of appraisal and shall not be deducted from the necessary expenses unless the Plaintiff submits evidentiary data. As such, the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit, since it is alleged that the value of the capital expenditures shall not be deducted from the necessary expenses. If it is apparent that the Plaintiff spent necessary expenses, the necessary expenses shall not be deemed zero on the ground that there is no proof of the specific amount, and in this case, the amount may be calculated by means of appraisal and deducted from the necessary expenses.

(d) Justifiable tax amount.

If the land-based construction cost of this case is deducted as necessary expenses, the legitimate tax amount shall be recorded in the calculation statement of capital gains tax amount in attached Form 2.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the part exceeding the fair tax amount of 000 won among the disposition of this case is unlawful, and the remainder is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.