2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. On November 14, 2001, the Plaintiff purchased and owned KRW 142,00,000 from 173-8 and 609 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of ○○○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong and 173-8 and 2 parcels of ground, and transferred the instant real estate to ○○-dong on June 5, 2002 (hereinafter “instant transfer”).

B. After that, around June 2002, the actual transfer value of the instant transfer under the Plaintiff’s name was 150,50,000,000, and the actual acquisition value was 142,00,000, and thereafter, the transfer income tax base was paid in KRW 708,450.

C. Around August 12, 2005, thisA transferred the instant real estate to a third party on and around October 2005, and reported the actual acquisition value of the instant real estate to KRW 168,00,000. Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff actually transferred the instant real estate to KRW 168,000,000, and had failed to report as if it were to have transferred the said real estate at a lower price of KRW 150,500,000; and (b) calculated the transfer income tax with the real transfer value of KRW 168,00,000,000 on December 9, 2008, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 13,00,000,050 for the transfer income tax for the year 202 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

D. (1) The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with this and received a decision of dismissal on April 1, 2009.

On June 29, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. Accordingly, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to re-examine the transfer value of the instant real estate to the Defendant on September 29, 2009 to order the disposition of correction based on the result of re-audit of the transfer value of the instant real estate and taking into account the following: (a) the real estate broker, who was requested to sell the instant real estate from the Plaintiff, paid the Plaintiff KRW 24 million in the name of the remainder of the sale before the date on which the sale is prohibited; and (b) the real estate broker, who was requested to sell

(2) In this regard, the Defendant conducted a reinvestigation of the transfer value of the instant real estate on or around December 2009, and as a result, determined that the actual transfer value of the instant real estate was KRW 168,00,000 as before and maintained the instant disposition as it is.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 21 of A, Evidence Nos. 1 and 7 of B, Evidence Nos. 4-1 of E, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether a disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff requested KimB, a real estate broker, to sell the instant real estate at KRW 152,00,000. After that request, the Plaintiff: (a) held that the instant real estate was sold at KRW 152,00,000 from KimB; and (b) held that only the sales amount, excluding the amount of KRW 30,000 and the amount of KRW 90,000,000,000, which the Plaintiff agreed to acquire from the above 152,000,000; (c) was aware that the instant real estate was sold at KRW 152,00,000,000; and (d) held that the instant real estate was sold at KRW 168,00,000,000, based on the premise that the actual transfer value of the instant real estate was 168,000,0000,0000,000,000 won, based on the premise that the Plaintiff was in fact aware of the transfer value; (c.)

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On November 14, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate, and the mortgagee, △△ Bank Co., Ltd., and the debtor, the Plaintiff and the maximum debt amount were KRW 36 million. Meanwhile, as to the instant real estate at the time of the instant transfer, there was a remainder of KRW 30 million as to the instant real estate, and KRW 90 million as to the obligation to refund the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis.

(2) On June 2002, the Plaintiff requested KimB, a real estate intermediary, to act as a broker for the sale and purchase of the instant real estate, delegated all of the powers on the sale and the authority on the tax base of capital gains after the sale, etc., and the Plaintiff’s seal imprint, etc. was created.

(3) Around June 3, 2002, KimB entered into a sales contract on behalf of the Plaintiff, on behalf of the Plaintiff, with an amount of KRW 168,00,000,000 for the instant real estate, and the down payment of KRW 10,000 on the date of the contract. This shall be paid on the date of the contract, and thisA shall accept KRW 30,000,000 for the aforementioned collateral security obligation and KRW 90,000,000 for the repayment of the deposit and KRW 120,000,000,000 for the remainder payment of KRW 38,000,000,000 for the remainder of the purchase and sale, instead of paying KRW 120,00,00 for the remainder of the purchase and sale. However, in the confirmation and description of the object of brokerage under the sales contract (Evidence No. 16 (No. 16) (Evidence 3) prepared at the time of the contract, stating that the collateral is the said person, which

(4)However, KimB received the down payment of KRW 10 million from thisA on the date of the contract, and this A gave the instant real property as collateral, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real property in the name of thisA on June 5, 2002, prior to receiving the remainder of the purchase and sale payment on behalf of the Plaintiff, prior to receiving the payment of the remainder of the purchase and sale payment on behalf of the Plaintiff by providing the instant real property as collateral. Thereafter, thisA paid KRW 38 million to the Plaintiff’s agent, after receiving loans from the new bank on June 8, 2002, with approximately KRW 99,00,000,000 from the new bank on June 8, 2002, and paid KRW 38,000,000 for the remainder of the purchase and sale payment. Accordingly, the registration of ownership transfer was cancelled on June 8, 2002.

(5) In making a report to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place for tax payment pursuant to Article 165(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6557 of Dec. 31, 2001) prior to the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of thisA with respect to the instant real estate, GimB prepared and submitted a sales contract with the date of the sales contract as of Apr. 28, 2002; the sales price was KRW 150,500,000; the remaining payment date was as of Jun. 4, 2002 [No. 14 (No. 2-1)];

(6)In addition, KimB made a tax base report of capital gains in the name of the plaintiff, using the sales contract dated April 28, 2002, prepared differently from the actual sales contract around June 2002, as described in paragraph 1-B.

[Ground of Recognition] The respective statements in Evidence Nos. 8, 9,11, 12, 14 through 19, Evidence Nos. 2-1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9 through 11, witness KimB, and the purport of the whole testimony and arguments of thisA

D. Determination

(1) Whether the instant disposition is against the principle of substantial taxation

(A) Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that if the ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is a person to whom it actually reverts, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable for tax payment and tax-related Acts shall apply. Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 96(1)4 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6781, Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter the same) where a real estate is transferred within one year after its acquisition, the transfer value, which serves as the basis for calculating the transfer income tax, shall be based on the actual transaction value, which is the actual transaction value between the transferor and the transferee. An agent who has the power to conclude a sales contract from the real estate owner, barring special circumstances, shall be deemed to have the power to receive the intermediate payment or balance, as agreed in the sales contract (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da39379

(B) According to the above facts, in selling the instant real estate within one year after its acquisition, KimB granted comprehensive authority to sell the instant real estate to the real estate broker KimB, and thus, KimB, which could be deemed entitled to receive the instant real estate sales proceeds, on behalf of the Plaintiff, concluded a sales contract on behalf of the Plaintiff with LA and received the remainder of the sales proceeds excluding the above collateral security debt of KRW 30 million and the deposit repayment obligation of KRW 90 million, which the Plaintiff agreed to acquire, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the actual transfer value of the instant real estate was 168,00,000 and the total amount was 168,000,000 won, and that the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant real estate was 152,000,000 won, and that the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant real estate was 160,000 won and 160,000,000 won on the premise that the Plaintiff’s internal disposal of the instant real estate was delegated to the Plaintiff’s 1.

(2) Whether the instant disposition goes against the underlying taxation principle

In addition, Article 16(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that if a taxpayer keeps and records a book pursuant to tax-related Acts, the investigation and determination of the relevant national tax base should be based on the relevant book and evidence related thereto. Thus, in order to apply the principle of base taxation under the Framework Act on National Taxes, a taxpayer should first be deemed to fall under the case where a taxpayer keeps and records a book pursuant to tax-related Acts. However, there is no evidence to deem such case to fall under this, and the Defendant made the instant disposition based on the actual sales contract and the payment details of transfer proceeds of this case, etc. related to the transfer of this case, the instant disposition cannot be deemed to violate the principle of base taxation.

(3)Indivates

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate on the premise that the actual transfer value of the real estate of this case is KRW 168,00,000.

3.In conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.