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

"A. The plaintiff, on December 12, 2001, acquired the ownership of the building of OO-si O-si O-si O-si O-type 455-12, 191.7 square meters and three-storys of the ground reinforced concrete structure (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "real estate of this case", and the building of this case was specified only; (b) on February 2, 2004, on March 12, 2004, the plaintiff transferred the real estate of this case to thisCC. The plaintiff reported and paid the transfer value to the defendant on March 12, 2004, the acquisition value to OOO, the acquisition value to OOO, and necessary expenses to OOO-be.

C. On October 2012, the Director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office conducted an investigation of capital gains tax, and notified the Defendant of taxation data regarding the actual transfer value of the instant real estate as OOO or acquisition value as OOO won. On January 1, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing capital gains tax for the transfer value of the instant real estate on the Plaintiff, the acquisition value of the instant real estate as OOO, OOO, or necessary expenses, after correcting the tax base and tax amount and deducting the already paid tax amount.

D. On June 26, 2013, the Tax Tribunal rendered a re-audit decision to the effect that the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, and that on June 26, 2013, the Tax Tribunal should re-examine the actual acquisition value of the instant real estate and accordingly correct the tax base

E. Around August 2013, the Defendant: (a) considered the acquisition value of the instant real estate as an OOO; and (b) reduced the transfer income tax for the year 2004 as OOO(including additional tax) by reducing the acquisition value of the instant real estate as OOO(s).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of the capital gains tax for the year 2004 is legitimate

Article 22-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same) provides that any revision that increases the amount of tax initially finalized under the provisions of tax-related Acts shall not affect the rights and obligations under this Act or tax-related Acts with respect to the amount of tax initially finalized and finalized, and thus, a revocation may not be sought with respect to any amount of tax that cannot be raised any longer due to the lapse of the period of objection or the period of filing a request for correction, and only to the extent of the increased amount of tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du4855, Mar. 29, 2012).

ex officio, the plaintiff could no longer dispute because the defendant's increase or decrease of capital gains tax and the period for filing a request for correction is finalized at the time of imposition of capital gains tax as of January 1, 2013, which was reported and paid by the plaintiff on March 12, 2004. Thus, the plaintiff cannot seek cancellation of capital gains tax for 2004 already finalized.

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing the transfer income tax for the year 2004 among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

"(hereinafter referred to as "OOO(=OOO -OO)" and 3. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The exclusion period of the transfer income tax on the transfer of the instant real property and the period of extinctive prescription of the right to collect the transfer income tax are five years, respectively. The instant disposition was made after the expiration of the exclusion period and the statute of limitations

2) The Plaintiff paid the deposit amount of KRW OOO2, the owner of the instant real estate, to ParkB, the former owner of the instant real estate, in addition to the purchase price. As such, the acquisition price of the instant real estate ought to be calculated based on the amount of the transfer income tax (i.e., OO. + OOOOwon). In addition, in a case where the amount of the deposit on the first floor and the rooftop room of the instant building is not confirmed, and the said deposit cannot be recognized as the acquisition price, the acquisition price of the instant real estate constitutes a case where the actual transaction price cannot be confirmed, and thus, the acquisition price of the instant real estate ought to be determined based on the conversion price.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) As to the Do and argument of exclusion period of imposition

"A) Under Article 26-2 (1) 1 and 3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, national taxes cannot be imposed after the expiry of a five-year period from the date on which national taxes can be imposed. However, in cases where a taxpayer evades national taxes by fraud or other unlawful means, national taxes may be imposed for ten years. "Fraud or other unlawful acts" refers to deceptive means or other active acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes," and (b) in light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances revealed in light of health stand, Eul's statement in evidence No. 6, and the purport of oral argument as to this case, i.e., the plaintiff's purchase of the real estate of this case from 0 B on December 12, 201 to 100, the real estate sales contract (Evidence No. 6) prepared between the plaintiff and 200, which was made between 1000,000,0000 won and 10,000,0000 won, which are real property sales price.

2) As to the claim on the expiration of the statute of limitations

A) Under the premise that the tax liability is specifically determined, the extinctive prescription of the right to collect taxes is to prevent the tax from being collected if the tax authority fails to take measures to collect delinquent taxes within a given period. Article 27(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the extinctive prescription of the State’s right to collect national taxes shall expire if it is not exercised for five years from the time when it is possible to exercise the right. Article 12-4(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19893, Feb. 28, 2007) provides that the reported amount of national taxes is determined by the tax base and return, the State’s right to collect national taxes may be exercised for the reported amount of national taxes from the day following the statutory tax return due date following the statutory tax return due date, where the government determines, revises, or occasionally imposing the tax base and tax amount (Article 1).

B) In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff seeks revocation is not a collection disposition, and the extinctive prescription applies to a collection disposition that is not a collection disposition, and even if the extinctive prescription has expired, the imposition disposition is not immediately unlawful. Furthermore, as seen earlier, since the instant disposition was conducted before the lapse of 10 years from June 1, 2005, the day on which the transfer income tax from the transfer of the instant real estate can be imposed, the extinctive prescription of the collection right shall be calculated from the day following the payment deadline by the instant disposition. Even if the date of commencement on January 1, 2013, where the instant disposition was taken, it is apparent that five years have not elapsed since the date of extinctive prescription, which is the period of the collection right, was not specified in the record. Therefore, the Plaintiff

3) As to the assertion of illegality in calculation of acquisition value

[A] According to Articles 96(1) and 97(1)1(a) and (c) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7579, Jul. 13, 2005; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”), the transfer value and acquisition value of assets pursuant to Article 94(1)1 and 2, including real estate, shall be based on the standard market price at the time of transfer or acquisition of the assets. However, in the case of transfer of assets under the proviso of Article 96(1) of the former Income Tax Act, including real estate within the designated area, the transfer value and acquisition value shall be calculated based on exceptional actual transaction price if the Plaintiff acquired the real estate at the time of acquisition of the real estate at the time of acquisition of the real estate at KRW 10,00, 200, 176-2(1) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18903, Jun. 30, 2005).

(1) The Defendant confirmed on November 3, 2001, through the financial transaction data such as the details of passbook transactions by the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract on the instant real estate with ParkB on November 3, 2001 and paid OOOB in cash, such as paying OOOB to ParkB. After the copy of the register of the instant real estate and the resident center’s investigation, the Plaintiff confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff succeeded from ParkBB to the obligation to refund OOOF to KimF, the lessee, the lessee, the lease deposit, and the obligation to return OOOOF to the lessee for KimG, the lessee, the lessee. Based on this, the Defendant recognized the real acquisition value of the instant real estate as the OOB, and recognized that the Plaintiff was paid as the sales price of the instant real estate with respect to the said money.

(2) At the time of concluding the sale and purchase contract on the instant real estate, the Plaintiff paid the KRW OOO of the deposit received for the lease of the first floor and rooftop of the instant building to ParkB, who is the owner of the instant real estate, in addition to the purchase price. However, ParkB, the seller of the instant real estate, did not seem to have completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff without receiving OOO won equivalent to 20% of the purchase price. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was unable to submit the original copy of each letter (Evidence A No. 8) in the name of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Kim E-E, which is only the only document to prove the acquisition price of the instant real estate, on the ground that the original copy (Evidence No. 8) was teared, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s testimony as stated in the evidence No. 8 and 12 and the witness Kim E-E as it is.

(3) The Plaintiff asserted that the deposit on the first floor and the fourth floor floor of the instant building was deposited by the OOOO, and that the deposit on the third floor floor of the instant building was deposited by the OOOOOO, and that the deposit on the first floor of the instant building was changed to the OOO of the first floor and the fourth floor floor of the instant building on the third ground for pleading, and there is no consistency in the Plaintiff’s assertion on the amount of the deposit on the first floor and the fourth floor of the instant building, and there is no consistency in the Plaintiff’s assertion on the amount of the deposit on the first floor and the fourth floor of the instant building on the ground that the Plaintiff paid the deposit on the first floor and the fourth floor of the instant building to ParkB. The Plaintiff did not submit materials, such as sales contracts or receipts, supporting the road transaction value of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

(4) While the Plaintiff asserts that the first floor of the instant building was leased to the OE, the witness KimD of the first instance court stated to the effect that the deposit was less than the deposit at that time and the monthly rent was high, and that the witness KimE stated that the first floor of the instant building was not an OE as a monthly salary, and that the first floor of the instant building was leased to the OE. In light of the fact that the witness KimE stated that the first floor of the instant building was a memory that was set up as a monthly salary, it cannot be seen that the first floor of the instant building was leased to the OE.

(5) The Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from ParkB, and disbursed the sales price of the instant real estate plus the sales price OOOO and the necessary expenses OOOOO. In light of the fact that the location of the instant real estate at that time was an area designated as an speculative area, it is not deemed that the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from an amount equivalent to the OOO won and sold it to the OO won after the lapse of two years.

(6) ParkB stated that the building of this case was newly constructed at the cost of construction equivalent to the OOO won per square, and that it was transferred to the Plaintiff at the cost of an OOO won. This seems to have no big difference from the neighboring market tax at the time of acquiring the real estate of this case.

(7) Even if the Plaintiff leased the first floor and the fourth floor of the instant building after the conclusion of the sales contract on the instant real estate, it is difficult to readily conclude that the deposit was paid to ParkB, a seller, in the purchase price of the instant real estate at the time after the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate.

C) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition of imposition of the transfer income tax for the year 2004 among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and thus, the remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.