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

(a) The primary agreement;

On June 19, 1973, the plaintiff acquired the building of 304 m2, 364 m2, 304 m2, 304 m2, 364 m2 (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") and the third m2, from November 1985 to 00 m2, the non-party church used the above building. From now on June 1996, the plaintiff and the non-party church donated the land of this case to the non-party church, the plaintiff donated the land of this case to the non-party church, and the non-party church removed the above building on the land of this case with the cost of the non-party church and constructed the building of 1st and fourth m2, and owned it to the non-party church during the whole life (hereinafter referred to as the "the first agreement").

(b) New construction of buildings and bearing of construction costs;

(1) While maintaining the title of ownership of the instant land as the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was elected as the chairman of the building of the non-party church, and entered into a contract for construction of the building with ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. on Jan. 16, 1997 to build the building and received a building permit by designating the Plaintiff as the owner on Feb. 5, 1997. Meanwhile, the non-party church expected construction cost to be KRW 700 million, and it tried to prepare construction cost with funds and cash, but the construction cost was increased to KRW 80 million as a result of the increase in the building area, but only KRW 200 million out of the construction cost was not raised. The remaining construction cost was collected from a financial institution or any other place such as receiving 300 million funds from ○○ Bank on Apr. 3, 1997, and the Plaintiff continued to pay the loan and the loan continued.

(2) Around April 1997, the third floor building on the instant land was removed and completed around September 1997, and on October 24, 1997, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the Plaintiff’s future with respect to the instant building. However, under the circumstance that the settlement of construction costs borne by the Plaintiff between the Plaintiff and the non-party church is not resolved, the Plaintiff leased the first floor building to KRW 21,100,000,000,000, and used the fourth floor, and the non-party church used the second floor and the third floor. On October 25, 2001, the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 360,000,000,000,0000,000 won and the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,200,000,000,000,0000,000,000 won for each share of the instant land and the second floor.

(c) Implementation of secondary agreements and donations;

(1) Around January 28, 2002, an agreement was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the donation of excreta and the settlement of the expenses for the management of the donation of excreta and the instant land (hereinafter “the second agreement”) with the following terms (hereinafter “the second agreement”).

① The Plaintiff donated the instant land and buildings to the Nonparty church.

② The Plaintiff shall repay the loans from ○○ Bank (40 million won) to ○○ Bank within three years, cancel the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on the instant land and building, and shall also be liable for the interest on loans up to that time. The Plaintiff shall also be liable for the repayment of the deposit for lease of the instant commercial building (210 million won).

③ Nonparty church shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 650 million due to the construction cost of the building of this case over seven years, and shall pay KRW 100 million for one year from January 28, 2003 to one year, and KRW 50 million for seven years.

④ When the non-party church fails to pay the above money within the given period, the contract of donation shall be null and void, and the non-party church shall transfer the ownership of each real estate of this case to the plaintiff to its original state.

⑤ The Plaintiff has a right to lease the first floor commercial building and the right to use the fourth floor of the instant building for lifelong education.

6. The non-party church may not dispose of the land and buildings of this case without the consent of the plaintiff.

(2) On February 5, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Nonparty church on the ground that the instant land and building were donated on January 28, 2002.

(3) On November 21, 2002, the plaintiff and the non-party church changed the repayment method with respect to the construction cost of KRW 650 million that the non-party church decided to pay in installments over seven years pursuant to the second agreement, and the non-party church took over KRW 400 million against the plaintiff's ○○ Bank, and the non-party church paid KRW 35 million on the same day, and the remainder of KRW 215 million on the same day. The non-party church subsequently accepted the plaintiff's lease deposit of KRW 215 million with respect to the non-party church that subsequently paid to the plaintiff, and on December 1, 2003, the non-party church paid KRW 200 million to the plaintiff and paid KRW 200 million with the payable amount of KRW 2 million to the plaintiff on December 1, 2003.

(d) Imposition of capital gains tax;

The Plaintiff did not file a preliminary or final return on capital gains tax base in relation to the donation of the instant land and buildings to the Defendant. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff donated the instant land and buildings to the Nonparty church with the burden of KRW 650 million for the construction cost of the instant building; and (b) determined capital gains tax for KRW 80,537,160 on December 7, 2006 for the portion of donation with the burden of KRW 650,000,000 for the instant land and buildings; and (c) notified the instant disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 17 evidence, Eul 1 evidence (including the paper number), the testimony of the witness assistant, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

650 million won under the gift contract of this case is merely a method of payment, etc. of the same method when the non-party church prepares a gift contract for convenience as a non-party non-party church's non-party non-party church's non-party debt for construction work, which was borne by the plaintiff, and is not a burden related to the donation. Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which imposed the capital gains tax corresponding to

(b) Related statutes;

Article 88 (Definition of Transfer)

C. Determination

(1) Under Article 88(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7006 of Dec. 30, 2003), where a donee takes over a donor’s obligation due to an onerous donation, the portion equivalent to the amount of obligation out of the donation amount shall be deemed a transfer and thus, the transfer income tax shall be imposed on the donor. The purport of the above provision is that even though the real estate is actually transferred, if the ownership of the real estate is transferred in the form of the donation after the loan is made as security, the amount equivalent to the loan may result in a tax evasion if the transfer income tax cannot be imposed, on the reason that the transfer income tax cannot be imposed on the real estate that is equivalent to the loan, and thus, to avoid such unjust result, the portion equivalent to the loan shall be deemed a transfer and the transfer income tax shall be imposed.

(2) According to the above facts, the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s obligation equivalent to KRW 610 million with respect to the donation of the instant land and building from the Nonparty church (i.e., KRW 400 million with respect to the loan of ○○ Bank + KRW 210 million with respect to the repayment of lease deposit) and paid KRW 39 million with respect to the said donation in cash. It is deemed that the total amount of the obligation and the money received in cash and the money received in cash constitutes the burden of onerous donation.

① The first agreement constitutes a donation contract, such as the Plaintiff’s donation of the instant land to the non-party church, and the Plaintiff and the non-party church constructed the instant building at the expense of the non-party church and decided to own it as owned by the non-party church. However, since the title of the instant land and the owner of the instant building are the Plaintiff, it was inevitable to register the ownership of the instant building under the name of the Plaintiff, but it was decided to register the ownership in the name of the non-party church according to the first agreement, but only to take the form of donation in the second agreement. Ultimately, the instant building was constructed at the expense of the non-party church and was registered as owned by the non-party church, and it cannot be deemed that it was actually owned by the Plaintiff or that

② Under the first agreement, the non-party church had to bear the total construction cost of the building of this case, and the plaintiff had the obligation to pay the amount to the plaintiff. Accordingly, for the settlement between the plaintiff and the non-party church, the plaintiff and the non-party church agreed to take over part of the obligations to the non-party church and to receive 650 million won in cash. Thus, it cannot be said that the non-party church was paid the construction cost of the building of this case. The donation contract prepared at the second agreement expressed that the "650 million won is merely the burden of bearing the plaintiff's obligation to the plaintiff due to the construction cost of the building of this case".

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have donated the building of this case to the non-party church, and the 650 million won is not the burden of onerous donation. Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case against the non-party church is unlawful on a different premise. The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is accepted following the reasons.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim disposition of this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner, so the plaintiff's claim for revocation is justified and accepted. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.