2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. A. Around May 1989, the Plaintiff acquired 2,681 m2,681 m2, 465-2 m2, 465-3 m2, 922 m2 and 186 m2 before 465-4 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) and transferred the instant land to Nonparty Jeong-A on August 23, 2004.

B. On October 31, 2004, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 477,900,000, which is calculated according to the actual transaction price of the above land (transfer value of KRW 144,000,000 and acquisition value of KRW 132,00,000) pursuant to Article 96(1)6 of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7837, Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same) by filing a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income on the instant land to the Defendant on October 31, 2004.

C. Upon examining the actual transaction value of the instant land, the Defendant confirmed that the transfer value is KRW 509,00,000, and notified the Plaintiff of the tax investigation result that the said transfer value would correct the tax base and tax amount of capital gains tax with the transfer value on October 2, 2007.

D. Accordingly, on October 31, 2007, the Plaintiff paid KRW 21,139,037 of the capital gains tax calculated according to the standard market price of the land of this case (transfer value of KRW 143,94,00, acquisition value of KRW 30,902,048) pursuant to the main sentence of Article 96(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “the revised return of this case”).

E. On November 9, 2007, the Defendant deemed that the said revised return is unlawful and determined and notified (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) of the capital gains tax amounting to KRW 90,400,190 (the amount obtained by deducting each of the above capital gains tax paid) calculated according to the actual transaction price confirmed as a result of the tax investigation (transfer value of KRW 509,000,000, acquisition value of KRW 132,000,000) pursuant to the proviso of Article 114(4) of the Income Tax Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, Gap 7-1 to 4, Eul 1, 2, Eul 3-1, 2, and 3-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff paid capital gains tax of KRW 21,139,037 calculated based on the standard market price (transfer value of KRW 143,944,00, acquisition value of KRW 30,902,048) under Article 45(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the main sentence of Article 96(1) of the Income Tax Act on October 31, 2007, the disposition of this case, which the Defendant corrected and imposed capital gains tax calculated based on the actual transaction price by disregarding the above revised return without any particular reason, is unlawful.

2) The defendant's assertion

Even in the case of this case where the Plaintiff reported a revised return with the content of changing the method of calculating transfer margin to the standard market price after having known that capital gains tax will be imposed more than the amount initially scheduled after underreporting the actual transaction and amount for the purpose of reducing tax burden, if the revised return is deemed legitimate, the provisions of Article 96 (1) 6 of the Income Tax Act, which stipulates that capital gains tax may be determined as the actual market price, exceptionally, may not only be recognized, but also be detrimental to legal stability. Therefore, the instant revised return cannot be accepted as illegal and illegal, and thus, the instant disposition under the proviso of Article

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to Articles 45(1)1 and 48(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where the tax base and tax amount entered in the tax base return are below those to be returned under the tax laws, a person who has filed the tax base return within the statutory due date of return may file the revised tax base return before the head of the competent tax office determines or revises and notifies the tax base and tax amount of the national tax pursuant to the tax laws. Meanwhile, where a revised tax return is filed pursuant to Article 45 within six months after the statutory due date of return expires, an amount equivalent to 50/100 of the amount of the relevant additional tax shall be reduced or exempted, but it shall be excluded from cases where the revised tax base return is filed with prior knowledge

Meanwhile, according to Articles 96(1) and 97(1)1(a) of the Income Tax Act, in the case of land, the transfer value or acquisition value shall be based on the standard market price at the time of transfer or acquisition of the land concerned, but in the case where the land concerned falls under any of subparagraphs of Article 96(1) of the same Act, it shall be based on the actual transaction price, and among them, subparagraph 6 of the same Article refers to the case where the transferor reports the actual transaction price at the time of transfer and acquisition to the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment by the due date along with the evidential document at the time of the due date for final return. In full view of the purport of each of the above provisions, in the case of transfer of the land, it shall be subject to taxation based on the standard market price as to the calculation of transfer margin in principle, but as an exception, it shall be interpreted that the taxpayer is able to choose whether the taxpayer

First, we examine whether the revised return of this case is legitimate. ① As seen earlier, the revised return of this case was made before the Defendant notifies the tax base and tax amount after correcting it. ② Article 45(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes merely prescribes the requirements of the revised return where the tax base and tax amount scheduled or paid by the final return falls short of the tax base and tax amount to be reported under the tax laws, and does not exclude the revised return of the contents that modify the method of calculating the tax base and tax amount. ③ In light of the purport of Article 48(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, even if the taxpayer knows in advance that the tax base and tax amount would be corrected, the revised return would only deprive the taxpayer of benefits from additional tax reduction and exemption on the premise that the revised return would be possible, and no other provision that the revised return of this case would be accepted under the above conditions can be found to have been established under the premise that the taxpayer would be at a disadvantage higher than the standard market price of the transfer income tax for the purpose of reducing tax burden, and thus, Article 6(1)6)6(1)6) of the Income Tax Act can be interpreted as an exceptional provision.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the revised report of this case is illegal is illegal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.