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

A. On May 30, 2005, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s headB (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) acquired 1/2 shares in each of the instant land from Nonparty DoD on May 30, 2005, and transferred each of the instant land to Nonparty E in total,00 won on September 5, 2008.

B. On November 30, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a tax base for capital gains tax with the Defendant having the transfer value of ownership shares at KRW 000, and the acquisition value at KRW 000.

C. The former owner of the instant land transferred the instant land to the Plaintiff, etc., and paid the transfer income tax by filing a return on the said amount at KRW 000,00, while the head of Dongjak Tax Office notified the Defendant on May 17, 2010, notified the Defendant of the prior notice of taxation on the premise that the transfer value of the instant land is KRW 000 (=00 KRW x2), and then notified the Defendant after determining the transfer value of the instant land at KRW 00, in the pre-assessment review process requested by Hungary.

D. Accordingly, on June 29, 201 under the premise that the acquisition value of the instant land by the Plaintiff, etc. is KRW 000, the Defendant issued a pre-announcement of taxation imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the Plaintiff in 2008, and thereafter, on August 23, 2011, in the process of the pre-assessment review requested by the Plaintiff, the Defendant additionally recognized KRW 000 as the acquisition value of the instant land by the Plaintiff, etc. on the ground that the final receiver of a part of a check paid as a balance is the same as the final receiver of a check paid as an intermediate payment (in addition, the Plaintiff recognized KRW 1/2 for the Plaintiff), and on October 13, 2011, notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00 for capital gains tax of KRW 00 for the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 2 (if each of them has a lot number, including the number, and hereinafter the same shall apply), and the whole pleadings are taken.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff et al. prepared a sales contract in which the sales price was reduced to KRW 000 upon the seller’s request, even though the purchase price of the instant land was KRW 00,000, and paid KRW 000 in full (However, at the time when the Plaintiff reported the tax base of capital gains tax, the Plaintiff reported the acquisition price of shares at KRW 00,000 by paying the actual purchase price of the instant land at KRW 00. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition that deemed the acquisition price of the instant land as KRW 00, while the acquisition price of the Plaintiff’s share was KRW 00,000, deeming the acquisition price of the instant land as KRW 00, is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Issues of the instant case

The plaintiff prepared a sales contract stating the purchase price of this case as KRW 000 on the land of this case, however, the actual purchase price of the land of this case is KRW 000,000 per 3.3 square meters (per 1 square meter) while the seller asserts that the actual purchase price of the land of this case is KRW 000,000, calculated as KRW 3.3 square meters per 3 square meters (per 1 square meter). The seller asserts that the actual purchase price of the land of this case is KRW 850,000, and the defendant made the disposition of this case on the premise that the acquisition price of the land of this case by the plaintiff et al. is KRW 00, and eventually, the issue of this case is whether the plaintiff et al. has acquired the land of this case from Madd

2) Facts of recognition

A) Details of the purchase of the instant land by the Plaintiff et al.

The Plaintiff’s husband, H, her husband, discovered the instant land through this Section, a broker, while the site for material and night storage necessary for the subway construction of FF Construction Co., Ltd., FF construction, which was operated by her husband, and intended to purchase the instant land in the name of the Plaintiff

B) Conclusion of a sales contract for the instant land

On May 14, 2005, Park GG, an employee of FF Construction, on behalf of the Plaintiff, etc., calculated the purchase price of KRW 000 per 3.3 square meters (i.e., 850 square meters) with respect to the instant land on behalf of the Plaintiff, etc., and calculated the purchase price of KRW 000 (i.e., x00) and the down payment of KRW 000 on the date of the contract, while the intermediate payment of KRW 00 on May 19, 2005, and the remainder of KRW 00 on May 30, 2005, respectively, agreed that the seller’s contract was prepared and changed, and at the same time, the seller’s contract was prepared and submitted, and the sales contract was prepared and paid KRW 3.3 square meters per 3 square meters (i.e., 850 square meters) with respect to the instant land, and the remainder of KRW 00 on May 30, 2005.

c)payment of down payment and intermediate payments;

On May 14, 2005, the Plaintiff et al. paid Doddd on May 14, 2005, 000 won of down payment, and Dod on May 19, 2005, each receipt was drawn up on the receipt of KRW 000 and intermediate payment, and KRW 000 of the borrowed amount. On the other hand, on May 19, 2005, the intermediate payment was made on May 19, 2005, KRW 00, including KRW 50,000, out of the corporate bank account of ParkGG, and KRW 17, out of the said 00, was confirmed to have received this Section and Park J (the person who had engaged in real estate brokerage business as well as this Section at that time).

D) Payment of any balance

on May 30, 2005, the remainder payment date of HH remitted KRW 000 to the above account, and immediately after that date, Park G has withdrawn KRW 000 in the above account, KRW 1,000 check, KRW 2,68, and KRW 000 in cash and KRW 5,000 in the above 00 check, and HoD has recognized that it received KRW 00 in the above 00 check, and KRW 19 in the remaining 00 check, including two 00 check, and KRW 20 in the 00 check, which is confirmed to have received the last 00 check and KRW 20,00 in the 00 check, respectively, and Park J has finally received KRW 19 in the remaining 00 check and KRW 0 in the 00 receipt for the remainder of 00 in the Plaintiff, etc. on May 30, 200.

(e) payment of brokerage commission;

JeongD paid 00 won in total to this II on May 19, 2005 and May 30, 2005, respectively, as brokerage commission, and Park GG paid 000 won in seven copies of brokerage commission check to this II on May 30, 2005. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18870, May 30, 2005; Presidential Decree No. 17090, May 30, 2005>

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without any dispute, each of the above evidence, Gap evidence 3 through Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 6 through Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 5 (excluding the parts not believed in the following), and witness Park G and Eul evidence 5, each of these testimonys of this II, and the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole.

3) Determination on issues

A) The following circumstances revealed from the purport of the entire pleadings and the facts as seen earlier, i.e., (i) the seller’s receipt of the down payment and intermediate payment out of the purchase price claimed by the Plaintiff, and on May 30, 2010, the remainder amount was transferred from HaH to Y and withdrawn on the same day, and (ii) the amount remitted to Y was immediately withdrawn as a check which is easy to trackly track, and in light of the conclusion of the sales contract on the land of this case and the process of paying the price, and the relationship between the Plaintiff and YG, it is not deemed that Y would have used part of the above money. 3) At the remainder of the payment date, MaD was recognized to have paid 00 won under the title of brokerage commission for this II, and 00 won for ParkG, and 000 won for the remainder of the payment of the transfer income tax, and on the premise that it would have been difficult to recognize that Y was finally paid out of the amount of 000 won for the Plaintiff’s testimony.

B) Therefore, the actual acquisition price of the instant land is KRW 000, and unlike this, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful, deeming the acquisition price as KRW 000, and it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

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