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

A. On June 27, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired and retained the instant land as a gift on the donation on both pisi-si, Yangju-si, 000-9, 573 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”). On September 27, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land on September 27, 2007, and filed a tax base return on capital gains tax with the transfer value of KRW 000,000, and the acquisition value of KRW 000,000,” and “B. However, on October 1, 2010, the Defendant re-calculated the transfer value of the instant land as KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,000 won for the transfer income tax for the year 207 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”). The purport of the entire pleadings written out

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons. In other words, the plaintiff purchased the land of this case on October 31, 1983, but was entrusted under the name of the plaintiff's headquarters as a long-term business trip is scheduled in the United States, and was restored to its original state in the name of the plaintiff around 2001.

② Since the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land directly, the transfer tax rate was more severe than that of the non-business land.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On October 31, 1983, the Plaintiff’s husband completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land under his name.

(2) On June 27, 2001, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff was completed on the land of this case on the ground of donation.

(3) On November 13, 2002, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on November 26, 2002, and entered the Republic of Korea again on October 1, 2006. On September 21, 2007, the Plaintiff returned to the Republic of Korea again on September 22, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] The above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) As to the above argument (claim to the purport of title trust)

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff entrusted the title of the land in this case to Southern as the actual owner of the land in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(2) As to whether the above assertion was made (whether land for non-business use)

According to the above facts, since the plaintiff mainly resided in the United States and did not directly cultivate the land of this case because he did not reside in the Republic of Korea, the land of this case constitutes non-business land, and since the plaintiff's referring cultivated the land of this case, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disposition that applied the transfer tax rate corresponding to the non-business land after calculating transfer margin as of the time of donation on the premise that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land by donation 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.