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

A. The registration of ownership transfer was made on March 31, 1998 with respect to the same Ri 0-0 square meters, 0-0 square meters, 584 square meters, 0-0 square meters, 0-0 square meters, 725 square meters, 8-7 square meters in the same Ri 725 square meters, 8-7 square meters in the same Ri 8-7 square meters in the same Ri 8-16 square meters in the same Ri 708 square meters (hereinafter “each of the above land”) owned by the Plaintiff.

B. Of the instant land 1, the share of 0-0 square meters in the same Ri 595 square meters, 117/584 square meters in the same Ri 0-0 large 584 square meters in the same Ri 584 square meters, and 0-0 large 10 square meters in the same Ri 11 December 11, 2003 to thisCC. The share of 117/584 square meters in the same Ri 0-0 large 691 square meters in the same Ri 0-0 large 584 square meters in the same Ri 584 square meters in the same Ri 5, to thisCC on February 5, 2004; the share of 0-0 large 725 square meters in the same Ri 16, August 16, 2005; the share of 0-0 large 584 square meters in the same Ri 10-0-0 large 106 square meters in each 708 square meters in the same Ri 205.

C. Meanwhile, on June 28, 2005, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Republic of Korea (Ministry of Environment) on the two documents in Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, where the registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of the FFFFFFFFFF (hereinafter “GGGGGG”) and the name of the Republic of Korea (Ministry of Environment) on June 28, 2005 with respect to the area of 00 m20,000,0000 per annum, 113m2,000,0000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2

D. The director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China shall conduct a tax investigation on the plaintiff from December 22, 2006 to April 23, 2007.

In doing so, based on the Plaintiff’s direct receipt and use of most of the transfer proceeds of the instant 1 land, and the Plaintiff’s direct use of KRW 817,583,00 for the instant 2 land, the Plaintiff confirmed that the Plaintiff sold the instant 1 land and 2 land under title trust and unregistered transfer, and determined that it constitutes real estate sales business under Article 34 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010).

E. On March 31, 2008, the Defendant imposed global income tax of 76,477,590, global income tax of 2004, global income tax of 190,880, global income tax of 2004, global income tax of 485,650,640, and global income tax of 205, global income tax of 2005.

F. On June 16, 2008, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disposition, filed an objection with the Earlier Office on April 24, 2009, and filed a tax appeal on April 24, 2009. During the above process, the Plaintiff’s assertion was partially accepted, and the total income tax for the year 2004 was reduced to KRW 83,207, and 474 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), which was partially reduced, imposed each global income tax on March 31, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff was unable to receive a high rate of interest on the instant land, and sold the instant land to high-B on the condition that it succeeds to the principal and interest of KRW 1 billion on the instant land. However, the instant disposition is unlawful, on the ground that high-B did not repay the debt to the said land, and the Plaintiff, a debtor, was paid the said debt, and the high-B sold the said land and received the said subrogated payment from high-B, and the Plaintiff did not sell the instant land under a title trust with high-B.

2) When the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from GGGG, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million, opened a cement package with a width of 4 meters, and made changes in the form and quality for the construction of a clan hall on condition that the Plaintiff would not file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land with GGGG because the Plaintiff failed to comply with the said condition. In such a situation, the instant clan sold the instant land to the Ministry of Environment. Therefore, the instant disposition that was made before the Plaintiff sold the instant land unregistered, was unlawful.

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the land of this case

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff: (a) concluded 1 to 11, 22, 24, and 26 no later than 0,000 won for each of the above 20,000,000 won for each of the above 20,000 won for sale; (b) concluded 1 to 30,000,000 won for each of the above 30,000,000 won for each of the above 20,000 won for each of the above 30,000,000 won for each of the above 30,000,000 won for each of the above 0,000,000 won for each of the 1,000,000 won for each of the above 0,000,000 won for each of the above 0,000 won for sale; (c) concluded a contract between 1 to 30,000,000 won for sale and 1,00.

2) As to the instant land 2

을 제12, 제15 내지 제19호증, 제27 내지 제31호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취 지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 원고가 이 사건 2토지에 관하여 조건부 매매계약을 체결하였으나 그 조건을 이행하지 못하여 GGGGGG이 위 토지를 대한민국에 매도하였다며 제출한 갑 제22호증의 1 화해조서에는 ② 원고가 AAAAAA에게 폭 4m의 도로를 사용할 수 있도록 허락하고, 。 종중회관, 정자신축형 질변경・토목공사・건축허가를 이행하여야 하며, 원고가 이를 이행하지 않으면 원고가 대 구서씨종중에게 100，000，000원을 지급하고，③ 원고가 위 조건을 포함한 화해조건을 이행하지 않는 경우 원고가 경기 양평군 양서면 OO리 0-0 외 5필지의 소유권이전등 기의 말소등기절차를 이행하도록 규정하고 있어 위 화해조서의 기재가 이 사건 2토지 의 매매와 직접적인 관련이 있다고 보이지 않는 점，(2) GGGGGG의 대표자는 위 종중이 이 사건 2토지를 1996.경 원고에게 1억 원에 양도하였을 뿐, 달리 원고에게 금전을 대여한 사실이 없고, 매도 후 원고에게 소유권이전등기를 할 것을 수차례 독촉하여도 원고가 이를 이행하지 않았다고 진술하였으며 이 사건 2토지의 대한민국에 대한 매매를 원고가 대리하였고, 원고가 그 매매대금을 모두 지급받았으며 종중은 그 매각 과 관련한 대금을 지급받은 사실이 없다고 진술하고 있는 점，(3) 이 사건 2토지의 매 도 직전인 2005. 6. 15. 원고와 GGGGGG 사이에 작성된 합의서에는 이 사건 2토지 의 매각에 따른 GGGGGG의 대표자 서대원의 종합소득세, 양도소득세, 제세공과금 은 원고가 납부하기로 하고, 위 토지의 매매와 관련한 민・형사상의 책임은 모두 원고가 부담하는 것으로 기재되어 있는 점，@ 대한민국으로부터 2005. 7. 4. GGGGGG 대표자 서대원의 예금계좌에 입금된 이 사건 2토지에 관한 매매대금 817，593，000원이 같은날 원고의 계좌로 송금된 점 등에 비추어 보면, 원고는 이 사건 2토지를 대구서씨 종중으로부터 매수하였음에도 원고 명의로 이를 등기하지 아니하고, 대한민국에 매도하였다고 봄이 상당하다(위 인정사실에 비추어 갑 제23호증의 각서, 제24호증의 1 확인서의 기재 내용은 믿지 아니한다).

3) Sub-decisions

In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff was engaged in real estate sale business under Article 34 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010) through title trust or unregistered pre-sale, etc., and thus, the instant disposition based on such premise is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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