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.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 52,434,564 and additional tax of KRW 18,260,971 for the taxable year 2013 against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2016 shall be revoked.

A. On April 6, 2011, the Plaintiff and this** (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) sold real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “building part”, “land portion”, “land portion”, and “the instant real estate” in this case”) acquired 1/2 shares from Kim Jong-ran on October 30, 201, to * on October 30, 2013, and paid the transfer value of KRW 475,000,000, and acquisition value of KRW 463,46,213 as a voluntary declaration on December 23, 201.

B. From March 3, 2016 to March 31, 2016, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, etc., and deemed bathing facilities except for transferred assets (hereinafter “facilities of this case”) as facilities attached to the building of this case, and accordingly, the transfer value of the building of this case was KRW 1,44,00,00 (= KRW 950,000 (= KRW 475,000,000 (= KRW 490,000) + KRW 490,000) + Acquisition value of the facilities of this case + KRW 1,25,000,000 [the acquisition value of the real estate of this case + KRW 475,00,000,000 + KRW 475,000,000,000 + KRW 3636,50,005,000]. The acquisition value of each of the facilities of this case reverts to the Plaintiff for 1,501,636305,51.

C. On August 26, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant preceding disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 26, 2016, but was dismissed on November 10, 2016.

D. On June 29, 2017 while the instant lawsuit is pending, the Defendant rendered a decision of correction to reduce ex officio the depreciation costs exceeding KRW 31,882,770 of the instant prior disposition (i.e., KRW 70,153,510 in - KRW 38,270,740 in - the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 31,882,770 on June 29, 2017).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Ex officio determination

ex officio, the part of the instant lawsuit in excess of 31,882,770 won reduced by the instant disposition, and the Defendant revoked ex officio the part exceeding 31,882,770 won of the prior disposition through the instant disposition, as seen earlier. As such, among the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for revocation corresponding thereto in the instant lawsuit is nonexistent, and thus, there is no interest in the lawsuit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1

The facilities attached to a building under Article 94 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act refer to the essential facilities that need not be indispensable from the standpoint of the whole building because they cause objective convenience to the use of the building. However, since the facilities of this case, which are facilities for bath business in operation on the third and upper floors of the building of this case, can be used for other purposes after removing them at any time, they do not cause objective convenience to the use of the building of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant’s deeming the facilities of this case as facilities attached to the building of this case and included the transfer value of the building of this case in its transfer value is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Acquisition of the instant building

The Plaintiff et al. purchased the instant real estate from Kim* on April 6, 2011 in KRW 950,000,000, and the instant facilities in KRW 305,000,000, and completed the registration of each of 1/2 shares, and run the real estate lease business.

2) Transfer of the instant building

The Plaintiff, etc. sold the instant real estate to 1,44,00,000 won to * on October 30, 2013, and divided the value of the instant building into KRW 950,00,000 as a special agreement, and the value of the instant facilities into KRW 490,00,000.

3) The use of the instant building

On January 5, 1996, the building of this case is a neighborhood living facility built of reinforced concrete slab roof, a resting restaurant, boiler, and general restaurant on January 5, 1996, a daily product retail store for the first floor, a second floor, a health club for the second floor, and a bath for the third and fourth floors of the building of this case. Until now, bathing is operated in the third, fourth and upper floors of this case.

4) The status of installation and use of the instant facilities

The instant facilities are the boiler, bathing automatic control panel, water tank, water tank, broding pumps, water purifiers (training equipment), drainage pumps, underground pumps, pipes, etc., which are permanently attached to the interior walls of the instant building or to the first floor above the instant building, and are directly necessary for bathing business being operated on the third floor and above the instant building.

5) Certificate**

On March 10, 2016, the plaintiff et al. purchased the building of this case* the husband's ** entered into a contract with the defendant on March 10, 2016 with the knowledge that "the defendant would purchase the building of this case in KRW 1.44 billion, and that "the 490 million won, land and building of bathing facilities in KRW 950 million, and KRW 950 million, which are stipulated in the special agreement, were written by the transferor** through the real estate agent South**, the transferee * only confirmed the total purchase price, and the facility of this case was not directly confirmed, but did not separately agree on the special agreement."

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4-1, 4-2, 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Whether the facilities of this case are annexed to the building of this case

The following circumstances that can be recognized through the facts and the purport of the entire pleading, i.e., ① the third and upper floors of the building of this case continues to be bathing business until now with the building permit obtained for bathing business. ② The facilities of this case increase the objective utility of the building of this case with water supply facilities installed on the first floor, heating facilities, etc. of the building of this case for bathing business. ③ The facilities of this case are designed and manufactured for the above bath business, and are firmly attached to the inner walls or floors of the building of this case. It seems that the economic value of the building of this case would be little if separated from the building of this case. ④ The sale price of the building of this case was 00 won or more than the sale price of the building of this case * *00 won, while the sale price of the building of this case was 00 won more than the sale price of the building of this case, the sale price of the building of this case was 000 won less than the sale price of the building of this case * 40 billion won less than the sale price of the building of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the portion exceeding KRW 31,882,770 of the instant lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed as it is without merit. One-half of the costs of lawsuit is the Plaintiff, and the remainder is to be borne by the Defendant in accordance with Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act.