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

(2) The disposition of imposition shall be revoked.

A. On October 15, 2004, the Plaintiff: (a) on October 15, 2004, at AAB, acquired 4,415 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) on August 28, 2004, 653 square meters prior to 482 square meters; (c) 495-2 square meters of land for the same Ri; (d) 495-6 square meters of land for the same Ri; (e) 480 square meters of land for the same Ri 495-9; and (e) 4,415 square meters of land for the same Ri 495-12 and 808 square meters of land for the above ground; and (b) on August 28, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a new construction agreement with the construction corporation of 1,440 square meters of underground and 500 square meters of land on the instant land; and (e) concluded a new construction agreement with the JJ corporation (hereinafter “the instant construction project”).

C. On March 4, 2005, J General Construction completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the debtor as the plaintiff and the maximum debt amount of KRW 990,000,000. On April 24, 2006, the plaintiff borrowed 2.5 billion from TT Mutual Savings Bank as security the land, and then made a registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the debtor as the plaintiff and the maximum debt amount of KRW 3.755,00,000,000 to Qtoto Mutual Savings Bank. On April 27, 2006, J General Construction revoked revoked the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the above neighboring land.

D. Thereafter, the Plaintiff terminated the construction contract of the instant building that was concluded with J General Construction. On April 17, 2006, the Plaintiff newly concluded a new construction contract of the instant building with HHto Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “HHto”) and the contract amount of KRW 5 billion 1,200,000,000. On May 29, 2006, the name of the owner was changed to HHto the name of the owner of the instant building. On May 29, 2006, HHto created a registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on the instant land payment date (the original payment date) 04-11-18 On-site container BOX 300,000 on the ground of payment date of the instant land to secure the construction cost. Htoto completed the registration of ownership preservation on February 9, 207 following the completion of the instant building.

E. Meanwhile, each of the procedures for compulsory auction regarding the instant land and buildings was initiated, and Saturdays Mutual Savings Bank acquired the ownership of the instant land on January 28, 2009, and the best virtue acquired the ownership of the instant building on April 2, 2009, and the Plaintiff did not file a transfer income tax on the transfer of the instant land.

F. On May 1, 2012, the Defendant: (a) deemed the acquisition value of the instant land as KRW 87.3.6 billion, the conversion price; and (b) deemed the transfer value as KRW 2.32,533,00,000,000,000 for the successful bid price; and (c) determined and notified the transfer value as KRW 629,263,760,00,000,000 for the transfer income tax for the year 2009; (b) accepted part of the Plaintiff’s objection filed on July 3, 2012; and (c) deemed the acquisition value of the instant land as KRW 1.49,00,000,000 for the actual transaction price, not for the conversion price; and (d) recognized KRW 3,948,000 for other necessary expenses, such as acquisition tax, and imposed KRW 304,743,700 for the transfer income tax for the year 2

G. On September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax, filed an application for adjudication with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on September 28, 2012, and the Director of the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision of reinvestigation on September 9, 2013. On November 30, 2012, the Defendant, as indicated in Table 1, additionally recognized necessary expenses incurred in capital expenditures on the instant land and imposed KRW 23,546,106 on the Plaintiff by reducing or correcting KRW 90,973,961 out of the capital gains tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

1. Table 1: 04-12-07 Safety Guidance Fee for 04-12-07,00 O Safety Technology Group 04-12-12-10,000 OO (ju) 04-12-12-30,649,530 employment insurance premium for 04-12-12-30,649, 04-12-30 industrial accident insurance premium for 04-12-30 industrial accident insurance premium for 05,75-20-20 on-site employees, meal expenses for 2,750,000 O restaurants, and 05-28-28,0000 O-28,000 temporary storage expenses for the removal of buildings, and 05-1,000,00-28,000 or more of other public charges, purchase expenses for the development and utilization of groundwater, and 75-207-28,070-28,07

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including various numbers for each type of evidence), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff acquired the instant land to newly build and operate the hospital. The Plaintiff concluded a contract for the new construction of the instant building with J-2 to remove the factory existing on the instant land and build the instant building. The construction was suspended due to the occurrence of disputes related to the removal of factories and building sites, 90-1000,000,000 won for the instant land for J-2 to secure the construction cost of the instant building. After termination of the contract with J-2, 05, 00-10,000,000 won for new construction of the instant building, 50-10,000,000-10,0000,000 won for new construction of the instant building, 50-1,000,000 won for the instant land, 50-1,000,000,000 won for new construction of the instant building, 50-1,000,000 won for the instant construction of the instant building.

Table 2

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to Article 97(1)2 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009) and Article 163(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301 of Feb. 4, 2009), necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value for the alteration, improvement, or convenience of use of transferred assets, such as capital expenses, etc. for the purpose of using the transferred assets, and other similar expenses prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance. Article 79(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance of Apr. 14, 2009) delegated by the said Enforcement Decree provides for necessary expenses, such expenses as disability removal expenses (title 2), where a road is newly constructed on the relevant land for the convenience of land use, such expenses as expenses (title 3), and similar expenses (title 6).

On the other hand, since the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of taxation, the tax authority bears the burden of proving necessary expenses, in principle, since the deduction of necessary expenses is more favorable to the taxpayer, and most of the facts constituting the basis of necessary expenses are located within the control area of the taxpayer, so it is difficult for the tax authority to prove it, and thus, if it is reasonable to have the taxpayer prove it, taking into account the difficulty of proof or equity between the parties, it should be deemed that the taxpayer must bear the burden of proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10909, Jul. 28, 1992). 2) With respect to this case, the health expenses, and first of all, the expenses of the above attached Table 2, which the Plaintiff claimed that the Plaintiff spent as capital expenses for the land in this case, and the interest on the funds borrowed from J General Construction to secure the purpose of use, improvement or construction expenses for J General Construction cannot be deemed as capital expenses for the land in this case.

In addition, as seen earlier, the building of this case consists of one underground floor and four above ground, and the construction cost of the existing factory removal, soil construction cost, etc., which can be recognized as capital expenditure for the building of this case among the construction cost of 90 million won paid to JJ Construction by the Plaintiff as the construction cost, are already recognized as capital expenditure for the land of this case as shown in the above Table 1 by the Defendant as stated in the above Table 2. Other expenses are not all disbursed for construction of the building of this case, but for the construction cost of the building of this case as part of the construction cost of the underground floor of this case. The specific contents of each construction are merely disbursed for the purpose of creating, improving or using the site of the building of this case, and it is difficult to view that the specific contents of each construction work of this case, which are the remainder of the attached Table 2, have already been disbursed as capital expenditure for the purpose of developing, improving or using the site of the building of this case.

Therefore, it is legitimate for the Defendant to take the instant disposition by deeming that each disbursement indicated in the table 2 does not constitute capital expenditures on the instant land.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.