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

A. On June 10, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired and used an OOO-dong OOO-dong OOO-type OO-type building and the 4th floor of the ground reinforced concrete structure (hereinafter “instant real estate”) for a leasing business, and extended the 3th floor and the 4th floor on two occasions over two occasions. On June 20, 2012, when transferring the instant real estate, the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer value as OO members, the acquisition value as OO members, and other necessary expenses as the construction cost spent for the expansion and remodeling of the instant real estate.

B. On July 12, 2013, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of the capital gains tax for the year 2012, deeming that the Plaintiff cannot recognize the OOO of the construction cost for the expansion and reconstruction of the instant real estate reported to the Plaintiff as necessary expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on October 14, 2013.

The above claim was dismissed on December 18, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 and 4 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff spent the OO of the instant real estate as the necessary expense for the expansion and reconstruction construction cost. Since the Plaintiff’s combination of the above expansion and reconstruction construction cost and acquisition value, the transfer value of the instant real estate did not substantially exceed the OO won, the transfer value of the instant real estate, and thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the transfer margin occurred is unlawful.

2) The Plaintiff purchased shares 1/2 of the instant real estate together with AA, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the entire instant real estate in the Plaintiff’s name. On April 9, 2009, the Plaintiff sold shares 1/2 of the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff to BB on April 9, 2009. However, as the instant real estate was designated as a land transaction permission zone and becomes impossible to transfer the registration of ownership, the Plaintiff was recorded in the register as a form-based owner. Thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant real estate, is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the construction cost for expansion and reconstruction has been disbursed

Since the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of a taxation disposition, the tax authority bears the burden of proof as a matter of principle, in principle, necessary expenses that serve as the basis of the determination of taxable income. However, deduction of necessary expenses is more favorable to the taxpayer, and most of the facts that serve as the basis of necessary expenses are located in the controlled area of the taxpayer. Thus, the tax authority has difficulty in proving it, and if it is reasonable to have the taxpayer prove it in consideration of difficulty in proving it or equity between the parties concerned, it should be deemed that the taxpayer needs to prove it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10909, Jul. 2

In light of the overall purport of the arguments on this case, the plaintiff appears to have contracted AA to extend or rebuild the real estate of this case. However, "AA" submitted as the basis for the construction cost for the extension or reconstruction of the real estate of this case (No. 4-5) is acknowledged as follows: Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 3-1 through No. 3, and Eul evidence No. 4-7; i.e., AA stated that the plaintiff did not prepare a contract document with the plaintiff at the time of the defendant's investigation, and that the contract document was prepared retroactively to the amount agreed upon by the plaintiff while transferring the building of this case; the construction period under "AA" was stated from February 6, 2012 to May 30, 2012, but it is difficult to prove that the cost of the real estate of this case was transferred to AA, and there is no objective evidence to prove that the plaintiff had been transferred to A.21, an O.201.

2) Whether the actual owner of the instant real estate is AA or BB

Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "if the ownership of the income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal and there is another person to whom such income, profit, property, act or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income actually belongs shall be liable as a taxpayer and the tax law shall apply." Thus, the fact that the ownership of income is merely nominal and the person who actually receives such income is separately liable for admission to the claimant (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu505, Dec. 11, 1984).

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff, as a sole purchaser at the time of acquiring the instant real estate, prepared a real estate sales contract and completed the registration of ownership transfer as a sole owner at the time of transferring the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff prepared a real estate sales contract as a sole seller at the time of the transfer of the instant real estate. In addition to submitting a sales contract and an agreement made between AAA and BB during the instant lawsuit, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff received the purchase price of the instant real estate from BB, not only the financial transaction data that can verify that the Plaintiff received the purchase price of the instant real estate from BB, but also the AA or BB is an actual owner of the instant real estate, but also the objective data that could support the Plaintiff’s actual owner of the instant real estate. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff did not submit the aforementioned evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was the real owner of the instant real estate.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant deemed the Plaintiff as the owner of the instant real estate as the actual owner of the transfer margin, and that the Plaintiff did not recognize part of the expenses for the extension and renovation of the instant real estate claimed by the Plaintiff, and thus, was lawful.

3. Conclusion

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