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

A. On November 24, 1989, the Plaintiff acquired and owned a share of 3306/9521 square meters of 4,627 square meters of 00 ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, 78-8 Forest land (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On February 25, 2004, ○○ City approved and publicly notified an urban development project in the 3-2 district of ○ New Town (○○ City No. 2004-58). The instant real estate was included in the project site area.

C. When △△△, a project implementer, applied for the adjudication of expropriation to the local Land Expropriation Committee in order to acquire the instant real estate, the local Land Expropriation Committee rendered the adjudication of expropriation with the content that the commencement date of expropriation as of November 10, 2006 shall be December 29, 2006, and the instant real estate shall be 445,092,790 won, and the compensation for losses shall be 445,092,790 won.

D. The △△ Corporation deposited KRW 445,092,790 on December 20, 2006 as the Plaintiff refused the receipt of compensation for losses upon raising an objection against the above ruling of expropriation to the Central Land Expropriation Committee, and made the registration of ownership transfer on February 23, 2007.

E. On June 21, 2007, the Central Land Tribunal accepted part of the Plaintiff’s filing of objection, and increased the amount of compensation for the instant real estate in KRW 30,795,980. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the said filing of objection, filed a lawsuit claiming compensation under 2007Guhap2371 of the ○○ Administrative Court, which rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on October 31, 2008. On the contrary, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with ○○ High Court 2009Nu869, and the said appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on September 3, 2010.

F. Accordingly, on July 18, 2007, the Central Land Expropriation Committee additionally deposited KRW 30,795,980, and KRW 2,133,812, which were partly quoted in the case of ○ Administrative Court 2007Guhap2371 on November 19, 2008.

G. Meanwhile, around January 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) on December 20, 2006, deposited KRW 445,092,790 of the compensation for losses adjudicated at ○○ City and Local Land Expropriation Committee, as the time of transfer of the instant real estate; and (b) calculated the transfer value and acquisition value as the standard market price pursuant to Article 96(2) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same), based on the transfer value and acquisition value as the standard market price, and made a preliminary return on the transfer income

H. Accordingly, on November 1, 2009, the Defendant rendered a disposition of this case to the Plaintiff on December 23, 2007, on the ground that since the compensation for the transfer of the instant real estate was additionally increased as above, it cannot be deemed that the transfer price of the instant real estate was settled on December 20, 206, it cannot be deemed as the transfer date of the instant real estate. Meanwhile, since each of the above increased compensation was deposited through the Plaintiff’s objection and the transfer registration of ownership was made in the name of △△ Corporation on the instant real estate before the transfer price was settled, Article 98 of the Income Tax Act and Article 162(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20561, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same) should be deemed as the transfer date of the instant real estate on February 23, 2007, the date of receipt of ownership transfer registration should be deemed as the transfer date of the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The real estate of this case was transferred by compulsory expropriation under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor. Since the owner is substantially changed if the compensation for losses was deposited or paid by the commencement date of expropriation under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, even if the adjudication thereafter partially increased the compensation for losses by administrative litigation, it is irrelevant to the actual transfer of the ownership, and it cannot be said that the transfer date of the real estate of this case is unclear or the compensation for losses was made before the settlement date of the total compensation for the real estate of this case. The transfer date, which serves as the basis for calculating the transfer price of the real estate of this case expropriated under the same Act, constitutes the case of transfer by December 20, 206, which constitutes the case where the compensation for losses was first deposited by December 31, 2006. Therefore, even if the transfer price of the real estate of this case should be calculated based on the standard market price of the real estate of this case, the disposition of this case is unlawful by the defendant calculated the actual transaction price of this case as the transfer date.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 98 of the Income Tax Act provides that the time of acquisition and transfer of assets shall be determined by the Presidential Decree in calculating gains from transfer of assets. According to delegation, Article 162(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the time of acquisition and transfer under Article 98 of the Income Tax Act shall be the date of liquidation except for the cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs, and it shall not be deemed the date of liquidation of the proceeds of the relevant assets. Each of the above provisions provides that the time of acquisition and transfer of assets shall be determined by the language and text of the above provision in order to interpret and apply the relevant provisions uniformly and without contradiction. Thus, the transfer of real estate by juristic act or by transfer of ownership under the provisions of law shall be determined in accordance with the following provisions (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du6282, Apr. 12, 2002). However, Article 162(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the date of liquidation of real estate shall be determined as one of the transfer values of real estate before the transfer price is transferred.

(2) Therefore, in a case where a project implementer deposits the increased amount of compensation due to a landowner’s objection after the transfer registration of ownership was made in the future with respect to the land incorporated into an urban development project as in this case, the time of transfer of the land, which serves as the basis for calculating capital gains, can be said to be the date of receipt of the registration on the registry under Article 98 of the Income Tax Act and Article 162(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, the time of transfer of the real estate in this case is February 23, 2007, which is the date of receipt of the registration on the registry. Accordingly, since the real estate in this case was transferred after January 1, 207, the transfer income of the real estate in this case should be calculated by applying the actual transaction price under Articles 96(1)

Ultimately, the instant disposition that the Defendant calculated capital gains based on the actual transaction price by deeming the time of the transfer of the instant real estate as February 23, 2007 is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.