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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition taken by the Defendant on March 5, 2013 by the Plaintiff on March 5, 2013 is revoked.

A. On November 13, 1999, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 7, 199, with regard to OO-O-O large 273.6 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On the instant land, the Plaintiff constructed a neighborhood living facilities and multi-household housing (one name Ogs, hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) on the 6th floor of reinforced concrete structure, and completed each registration of preservation of ownership on November 6, 2000 with the Seoul Central District Court’s receipt OOOOOOO on each of the 16 sections of the real estate details stated in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant sections”).

C. On January 27, 2010, the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract (Evidence A2; hereinafter referred to as “the instant contract”) which provides that “The real estate recorded in the separate list of 101 and 15 households of the instant building shall be the object of “real estate” between Korea-A’s agent and BB, and the sales price shall be O0 million won.

D. On March 4, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of each of the instant partitioned buildings with the Seoul Central District Court No.OOO on January 27, 2010 (hereinafter “instant transfer”).

E. On March 4, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a report on the transfer of this case with the Defendant, after deducting the amount of reduced or exempted OO,OO,OO, OO, capital gains, OO, OO, O,O, and OO, the amount of capital gains tax reduced or exempted from OO, OO, OO, and OO, and then paid the amount of capital gains tax reduced or exempted from OO,OO, andOO on two occasions (hereinafter “instant report”).

F. On March 5, 2013, the Defendant: (a) filed a separate contract at the time of filing the instant preliminary return of transfer income tax in order to obtain excessive deduction of capital gains tax on newly-built rental houses; (b) determined that the transfer value of the housing portion was set at the discretion by submitting the separate contract at the time of filing the instant preliminary return of transfer income tax; and (c) determined on March 5, 2013, that the Plaintiff denied the Plaintiff’s act of filing the instant return; and (d) divided the transfer value of the instant building into the standard market price of the housing and the commercial building; and (e) issued a disposition of imposing a notice of correction of the transfer income tax amountO,OO, orOOO

G. On May 23, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on November 21, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, 9, 10 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) In transferring the 16 units of each of the instant sections to HanA, the Plaintiff separately decided the purchase price, taking into account the location, size, state, lease status, existence of limited real rights, etc., and then prepared a sales contract of Chapter 16 with regard to the total 16 units.

(2) Where the transfer value of the commercial buildings and multi-household houses claimed by the Defendant is unclear, the actual transaction value of the entire divided stores and multi-household houses is confirmed as a whole, but the actual transaction value of each divided building, such as multiple divided stores and multi-household houses, is unknown or unclear. The instant disposition that imposed tax on each of the multiple divided stores and multi-household houses, such as the transfer of this case, is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged according to the above evidence: evidence Nos. 4 (including paper numbers), Nos. 1, 3, and No. 2-3:

(1) On October 19, 2000, after the construction of the instant building, the Plaintiff registered nine households among each of the instant divided buildings with the OO Mayor as a rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act.

(2) On April 17, 2007, Korea District Court Sung-nam Branch 2007 business groupOOOO as to each of the instant sectional sections, determined the provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of ownership as the preserved right.

(3) As to Article 101 and Article 601 of the underground floor among each of the instant sections, the Seoul Central District Court completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on August 17, 2006 with the head of OOOOOO on August 16, 2006, the maximum amount of claims arising from the contract on August 16, 2006, the debtor corporation, the OO industry, and the mortgagee corporation, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on November 20, 2006 with the head of 113801 on November 17, 2006 of the same court as of November 20, 2006, which was the maximum amount of claims arising from the contract on November 20, 2006, the debtor corporation, the OO industry, and the O industry corporation as the mortgagee corporation, respectively.

"(4) The plaintiff, when preparing the instant universal contract with the agent Lee Dong-B on January 27, 2010, entered into the instant universal contract with the terms of the special agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "the instant special agreement"), 1. The transaction price is an additional tax included, 2. lease relationship is succeeded to. 3. access road is a private road, 4. collateral security fund and provisional disposition are to be cancelled at the time of intermediate payment on the seller's responsibility. 5. The buyer may change the buyer's name at the time of intermediate payment. 6. 6. 6.: "One copy of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, * 302 new part is to accept the seller's responsibility." (5) The plaintiff is between the A and the B on February 7, 2010, after the preparation of the instant universal contract.

(A) The sales amount of No. 101 of the underground first floor among each of the instant sections is OO, OO, OO, andOO;

(B) O,OO,OO, andOO of the first floor of each of the instant sections;

(C) OO, OO, OO, and OO of the second floor of each of the instant sections;

(D) OO, OO, OO, and OO of the second floor of each of the instant sections;

(E) OO, OO, andOO of the second floor of each of the instant sections:

(F) O,O,O, andOO of the second floor of each of the instant sections: (a) the purchase price under Section 204 of the second floor of this case; (b)

(G) Out of each of the instant sections, the sales amount of No. 301 of the third floor is OO, OO, OO, andOO;

(h) OO, OO, OO, and OO of the third floor of each of the instant sections;

(i) OO, OO, OO, and OO of the third floor of each of the instant sections;

(j) OO, OO, OO, or OO of the purchase price of No. 401 of the fourth floor of each of the instant sections;

(k) OO, OO, OO, or OO of the fourth floor of each of the instant sections;

(other) OO, OO, OO, andOO of the purchase price set forth in Section 403 of the fourth floor of each of the instant sections;

(m) O, OO, O, andOO of the fifth floor of each of the instant sections;

(n) O,OO,OO, andOO of the fifth floor of each of the instant sections;

(o) In each of the instant sections, the sales amount of No. 503 of the fifth floor is O, OO,OO, andOO;

(p) Of each of the instant sections, the sales contract of Chapter 16, in which the purchase price of the sixth floor No. 601 is KRW O,OO, orOO is set out in each of the instant sections (hereinafter referred to as “the instant separate contract”) of Chapter 4-1 through 16, hereinafter referred to as “the instant contract”).

(6) In preparing the instant separate contract with HanA, the Plaintiff entered into the instant separate contract and entered “1.0 of the present facility status, 2.0 of the lease relationship, 3, 3, 400 billion won and provisional disposition, at the time of intermediate payment, shall be rescinded at the time of intermediate payment by the seller. 4, 4, access roads are the current status of OO-O-O, and private roads, such as the confirmation of the plan for the use of additional land.”

(7) Of each of the instant sections, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage established with respect to Nos. 101 and 601 of the underground1 floors among the instant sections was revoked on February 9, 2010 by the Seoul Central District Court No. OO and OOOO on February 8, 2010, respectively.

C. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

D. Determination

(1) Where the distinction between the value of land, buildings, etc. is unclear, it shall include cases where the value of the land and buildings is not determined separately when the land and buildings are acquired or transferred in a lump sum, or where the value of documentary evidence, such as a written contract, is not reliable in light of each objective value, transaction purpose, publication price, etc., even if the said value is not determined by the genuine agreement between the parties, or is not determined by the intention of tax avoidance by significantly deviating from the ordinary transaction practices.

(2) The following circumstances revealed in the records, namely, ① the time of payment of down payment, intermediate payment, and remainder in connection with the time of payment of the purchase price under the collective contract of this case was specifically determined based on an O00 million won in total. ② Although the collective contract of this case was made between the buyer and the agent B of Han-A, the contract of this case was signed and sealed by the broker B-B, but it was signed and sealed by the broker B-B and accompanied by a confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage prepared by the broker (see subparagraph 3).

③ In the instant special agreement, the following facts are not stated: (a) the sales price of the instant building shall be determined as KRW 100 million; and (b) there is no provision stating that the sales price should be separately determined for each

④ Of the instant separate contracts, there is no indication that the contract (Evidence No. 4-8) on No. 302 of the third floor among each of the instant separate sections does not include “* 302 of the terms of the instant special agreement * 302 to accept the seller’s responsibility.”

⑤ Among each of the instant sections, the subject of provisional disposition, the whole and collateral security was partially established on real estate, and the aforementioned classification is not indicated in the instant sectional contract.

6. The fact that the Plaintiff implemented the registration procedure for transfer of ownership in a single building of this case (Article 2010-OOO of the sale list on the register)

7) In preparing the separate contract of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that it separately decided the purchase price in consideration of the location, area, state, lease status, existence of limited real right, etc. of each of the separate sections of this case, but there is no specific and objective ground for calculating the purchase price.

8. That each purchase price entered in the instant separate contract does not coincide with the advisory amount entered in the evidence No. 4.

9) Since each of the instant partitioned buildings consists of a commercial building (No. 7) and a house (No. 9), it is reasonable in light of the empirical rule to view that the transfer value of the entire building of this case would be determined based on the usual rent for the commercial building. However, considering the fact that the Plaintiff applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on each of the instant partitioned buildings (if the Plaintiff appears on March 4, 2010, it is doubtful that the Plaintiff prepared the instant divided contract for the purpose of tax evasion, it is doubtful that the Plaintiff would have prepared the instant divided contract for the purpose of tax evasion), the Plaintiff’s preparation of the instant divided contract would be divided by each of the divided buildings. However, in light of each of the objective values and transaction purposes, the said division of value is not a true agreement between the parties, or it is not possible to view that the said division of value would be a reasonable price other than the purpose of tax avoidance significantly beyond the ordinary transaction practices, and thus, the disposition of this case by the Defendant is lawful in proportion to the transaction value of each of the instant divided buildings.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.