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

A. On August 14, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land from the Seo-gu Daejeon-dong 000 large 4440.3 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) on April 18, 2003, and newly built the Gu house 1,756.5 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) with the first underground floor and the sixth floor neighborhood living facilities on the said ground on the said ground on April 18, 2003, and on August 21, 2005, on August 21, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land and building on March 9, 2004, but did not report and pay the transfer income tax.

B. The Defendant: (a) conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff; (b) deemed that the Plaintiff’s repayment of debt borrowed from ChoA and YangB is difficult; and (c) calculated gains on transfer (00 won) using the transfer value of the instant land and buildings as KRW 000, acquisition value as KRW 000, and necessary expenses as 00; and (d) decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000,000, the transfer income tax on July 21, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

① After acquiring the instant land in the same business, the Plaintiff’s husband Lee Do and Cho Jae-A agreed to sell the instant land in the name of the Plaintiff and start new construction works. The construction company and its subordinate companies attached to the instant land and buildings due to the lack of payment of construction cost, etc., and due to the difficulties in the real estate competition, etc., the Plaintiff demanded Does to transfer the ownership of the instant land and buildings to Does. Accordingly, Does and the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of the instant land and buildings to Cho and YangB through the liquidation of the business relationship in order to compensate for the losses of Daes. This was based on the premise that not only transferred the instant land and buildings to Does as the repayment of loans but also the transfer margin accrued in the process of the transfer of the instant land and buildings. This disposition by the Defendant was unlawful.

② Even if the Plaintiff had income from the payment in kind instead of the liquidation of the business relationship, and the Plaintiff had income, the Defendant: (a) out of the purchase price of KRW 000 between the Plaintiff and the twoB; (b) as of August 12, 2002 to January 30, 2003, the settlement deposit amount of KRW 00 is equal to KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, or 0,000,000,000,000 won, or 0,000,00,000,000 won, for the reason that the ownership transfer registration of KRW 10,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 won, or 0,000,00,00,00.

B. Determination

First, as to the Plaintiff’s argument, the Health Unit

If evidence Nos. 3 through 9 (including number 1) of this case, and the purport of the entire pleadings in witness evidence No. 1 of this case is added, Cho and YangB lent funds necessary for the construction of the new building of this case to the plaintiff and Lee Dong-B, and the plaintiff and Lee Dong-B had completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 21, 2005 and building of this case as payment in substitutes, and ChoA and YangB, the transferee of this case and the obligation to return the lease deposit for the building of this case, and the obligation to pay the remaining provisional seizure on the ground that the plaintiff and ChoA and YangB were not subject to such obligation and provisional seizure between the plaintiff and Lee Dong-B, and that the transfer of the purchase price of this case was not subject to such obligation and the receipts of 00 won (No. 4-1 of this case and receipts of 9 of this case) which are subject to a special agreement, and that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired the ownership of this case's new sale in lieu of the sale price of this case's real property of this case.

Next, as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Ministry of Health

In the calculation of transfer margin, the actual transaction price of the Plaintiff refers to the actual amount agreed for the payment at the time of the transaction itself or at the time of the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu629, Feb. 9, 199; 2006Du7171, Apr. 26, 2007). In this case, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff transferred the land and buildings of this case to Cho and YangB under the substitute payment for borrowed money, as seen earlier. As long as the Plaintiff and ChoA and YangB prepared the detailed statement of purchase price of 00 won, the full payment receipt of the purchase price, and the agreement on the payment for the land of this case and the building of this case, the Plaintiff’s claim that the above portion of the purchase price of this case was 00 won, i.e., the transfer price of this case’s land and the building should be set at 00 won, or that there is no possibility that the above portion would be less than the amount of lease deposit and the remainder.

3. Conclusion

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