The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

피고가 원고에 대하여 한， ▲ 2010. 12. 1.자 2007사업연도 법인세 000원의 부과처분，▲ 같은 일자 2008사업연도 법인세 000원의 부과처분，▲ 2010. 12. 9.자 2009사업연도 법인세 000원의 부과처분을 각 취소한다.

Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5, and Eul evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), shall be recognized as follows in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings:

[1]

O 원고는 부동산 매매업 등을 영위하는 회사로서，▲ 용인시 처인구 이동면 OO리 산 00 임야 7，140㎡ 및 같은 리 산 000 32，826㎡에 관하여 2007. 4. 19. 공유지분 246153.6/1911735의 소유권이전등기를， 2008. 1. 21. 공유지분 1398019.4/1911735의 소유권이전등기를 마쳤고▲ 같은 리 산 000임야 1，755m에 관하여 2007. 4. 19. 공유지분 246153.6/1911735의 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다.

"O 원고는 위 OO 산 000 임야 7，140㎡， 같은 리 산 000 임야 32.826㎡， 같은 리 산 0000 임야 1，755㎡(이하 '이 사건 각 토지'라고 한다)의 공유지분에 관하여 2007년부터 2008년까지 김DD， 김EE， 윤FF 등에게 근저당권설정등기를 마쳐주었다.",O 원고의 거래처 원장에는 근저당권자들인 김DD， 김EE， 윤FF 등에 대한 선수금과

The total amount of 000 won has been appropriated for those who are not the mortgagee.

[2]

O The defendant determined that from September 10, 201 to September 29, 2010, the plaintiff's corporate tax investigation was conducted for the business year of 2007 to 2009, and the above KRW 000,000, which was appropriated by the plaintiff in advance, among each land of this case, 29,091 square meters (hereinafter "the pertinent land") was sale price (the pertinent land for the business year of 2007 and KRW 000 for the business year of 2008).

O In addition, the Defendant deemed the date of the settlement of the price for the ownership of the sale following the transfer of the instant land as the date of the settlement of the price, and thus, calculated gross income of KRW 000,000 (the sum of KRW 000 received as the sale price for the instant land located within the land transaction permission zone and KRW 000,000, the transfer price for the land not reported by the Plaintiff) that the Plaintiff did not report as the sale, and included KRW 0

O) Accordingly, on December 1, 2010, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2007 and KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2008, and on December 9, 2010, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2009 due to the failure to submit the statement of payment.

C. On the other hand, the plaintiff was released from the sales contract for part of the land in this case, and requested the defendant to correct corporate tax, and the defendant reduced 00 won of corporate tax in the above 2007 business year and 000 won of corporate tax in the above 2008 business year.

O) Accordingly, on March 18, 201, the Defendant re-issued and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2007 and KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2008 (hereinafter the above-mentioned reduced corporate tax for the business year 2007 and the corporate tax for the business year 2008 and the above-mentioned 2009 business year.

[3]

C. On March 201, the Plaintiff claimed that: (a) the instant disposition was filed with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition; (b) the instant land is located within the land transaction permission zone; and (c) the possibility of obtaining land transaction permission is not certain at the time of transfer; (d) the transfer of the instant land was accounted for an advance payment, not sales; and (e) the time when the profits and losses accrue should be deemed the business year for which the land transaction permission was granted for the year

C. On June 3, 2011, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on the ground that the time when the profits or losses transferred to the land within the land transaction permission zone should be considered as the date of settlement of the price.

2. Sales proceeds and borrowings;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff intended to sell the instant land, it did not intend to set up a collateral on the instant land by converting the purchase price into the borrowed money, and borrow money, and sell the instant land. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff sold the instant land is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) We examine the above facts of recognition by integrating the purport of the entire pleadings.

In the case, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant requested the correction of corporate tax when deeming the advance payment as an omission in the sale of the instant land, and that the sales contract of the instant land was partially rescinded, and that the instant land was accounted for as an advance payment other than the sale in the land transaction permission zone while the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal.

In the event that the Plaintiff did not claim that the sale price was set up by converting the sale price into the borrowed amount, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff paid interest to the mortgagee, and it is difficult to view that the mortgagee, who did not seem to have any special relationship with the Plaintiff, lent 100 won to the Plaintiff at no interest rate up to 000 won which was lower than that of the Plaintiff.

(4) On October 28, 2007, when three years have passed since October 25, 2007, 2007, the lagO prepared a power of attorney to purchase the land of this case with a maximum claim amount of KRW 000,000, and to apply for registration after permission of land transaction, and to delegate all matters concerning land transaction permission applications and land contracts. Accordingly, the sales contract between the plaintiff and Kim OO appears to have been effective until December 28, 2010, and the purchase and sale contract between the plaintiff and Kim O was converted into the loan amount and the mortgage was established. It is difficult to accept as it is, as it is, the plaintiff's argument that the sales contract between the plaintiff and Kim O was established.

In the event that the Plaintiff’s land transaction permission cannot be known at any time after the conclusion of the sales contract, and the Plaintiff asserted that the contract was set up a collateral by setting up the collateral, and that the time when the Plaintiff started to set up the collateral was from April 19, 2007 when the Plaintiff first acquired the share of each of the instant land from April 19, 2007 to two weeks, and that it was difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract within the short period and cancelled the contract and converted the sale price to the borrowed money, and then set up a collateral to KimD, etc. after converting the sale price into the borrowed money. Rather, the Plaintiff cannot be seen at any time when the land transaction permission was granted, and it is deemed that the Plaintiff set up a collateral in order to secure the return of the purchase price paid by the buyer in the event that the sales contract becomes finally null and void due to non-permission of the land transaction.

(2) According to the above, the Plaintiff sold the instant land and received the sales price, and it is recognized that the instant land was established to secure the return of the sales price paid by the purchaser until the land transaction was permitted in the land transaction permission area, or until the land transaction becomes final and conclusive because the land transaction was denied, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Reversion time and corporate tax; and

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The key land in the instant case is a land within the land transaction permission zone, and the sales contract cannot be imposed prior to obtaining a land transaction permission due to a dynamic invalidation or cancellation of designation of the land transaction permission zone. Therefore, the instant disposition that imposed corporate tax on the land transaction permission before obtaining a land transaction permission or before revoking designation of the land transaction permission zone is unlawful.

B. Determination

(2) 「법인세법」 제40조 제1항， 제2항은 ▲ 내국법인의 각 사업연도의 익금과 손금 의 귀속사업연도는 그 익금과 손금이 확정된 날이 속하는 사업연도로 하고，▲ 익금과 손금의 귀속사업연도의 범위 등에 관하여 펼요한 사항은 대통령령으로 정한다고 규정 하였다. 이에 따라 「법인세법」 시행령 제68조 제1항은，▲ 상품(부동산 제외) . 제품 또는 기타 생산품(이하 "상품 등"이라 한다)의 판매로 인한 익금과 손금의 귀속사업연도는 그 상품 등을 인도한 날로 하고(제1호)，▲ 상품 등 외의 자산의 양도로 인한 익금과 손금의 귀속사업연도는 그 대금을 청산한 날이 속하는 사업연도로 한다고(제2호) 규정하였다.

(2) We examine the above facts and the purport of the entire pleadings in light of the relevant laws and regulations.

In the Corporate Tax Act, earnings means the total amount of earnings accruing from transactions which increase the net assets of a corporation, and the profits here mean the income from which goods or services are provided to another person and all other economic profits attributed to a corporation.

In order to determine which income is to be imposed, it is sufficient to say that there is a means to control and manage benefits in reality in light of economic aspect, and that there is a means to pay taxes, and the legal evaluation of the causal relation that has gained such income does not necessarily have to be lawful and effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu758, Nov. 10, 195).

In this case, a person who did not obtain a land transaction permit is given preferential treatment to a person who did not obtain a land transaction permit due to the lack of the land transaction permit, while possessing the sales price that he/she received after transferring the land in this case.

In the event the transaction of the instant land is denied or the sales contract is terminated, the Plaintiff may file a request for re-re-determination pursuant to Article 45-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 25-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the enforcement of the same Act on the grounds that the sales contract of the instant land, which served as the basis for calculating the tax base and the amount of tax, has been rescinded by the exercise of the right to cancel,

(3) According to the above, even if the land at issue is located within the land transaction permission zone, the plaintiff transferred the land at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue in this case and received the sale price, and controlled, managed, and passed it as prescribed, and such income is taxed, and it is not related to the loss or invalidity of the sales contract for the land at issue at issue at issue at issue at the same time, and, in other words, the income from the transfer of the land at issue at issue at the same time, and the income from the transfer of the profit at issue at issue at issue at 207 and 2008 business year which includes the date the price is settled in accordance with the provisions of the Corporate Tax Act. Accordingly, there is considerable reason to view that there is taxable income for the transfer of the land at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue in this case at issue at issue at issue at issue at the business year of 207 and

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is to be dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.