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

A. On March 10, 2004, the Plaintiff, together with AA and BB, concluded a sales contract with 500 million won on the instant real estate, △△-ri 541 and 17 lots (hereinafter “instant real estate”). DoD acquired the status of a contractor of AA, and paid 500 million won to CCC.

B. While the Plaintiff did not file for the registration of ownership transfer with the Plaintiff, etc. on the instant real estate, the Plaintiff entered into the registration of ownership transfer under the name of BB alone between DD and BB on January 6, 2014, and the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 1.2 billion from BB, and thereafter, on February 12, 2014, the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate was completed on February 12, 2014, and the Plaintiff received KRW 1.2 billion from BB from February 2014 to May.

C. Accordingly, on April 10, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 740,679,383 (hereinafter “original disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s 1.2 billion won received from BB, excluding KRW 241,000,000,000,000, not for the Plaintiff’s 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, was withdrawn from a joint purchaser’s name, and that the Plaintiff did not complete the registration of ownership transfer under the joint purchaser’s name, and that it would transfer the ownership to the remaining members and received the price

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the original disposition. On September 7, 2017, the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s transfer value at KRW 950 million, 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won

E. Accordingly, the Defendant dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review with the Tax Tribunal, which was dismissed on April 30, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 4-2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition based on capital gains is unlawful since the instant money constitutes not capital gains but general other income. Even if it does not correspond to the unregistered pre-sale, the instant disposition based on the ground that it was an unregistered pre-sale is unlawful.

B. Determination

If a partner receives a part of the partnership's property from the partnership's account while withdrawing from the partnership company, the partnership's relationship is terminated as if a part of the partnership's property was transferred (Article 274(1) of the Civil Act). As such, the calculation of shares is deemed to have been exchanged or traded among the partnership's partners who withdraw from the partnership under tax law and other partners who continue to conduct a joint business with the partnership's property. However, income earned by a partnership's transfer of real property for the purpose of a joint business purpose is a partnership's asset, and if it becomes a business asset, it becomes a business income (Article 87 and Article 43 of the former Income Tax Act). If a partner is subject to capital gains tax, it is subject to capital gains tax (Article 118 of the former Income Tax Act). Since the nature of income earned by the withdrawing partner's transfer of his/her shares on the remaining partnership property to other partners and obtain some of the partnership property, it shall be deemed that the withdrawing partner's business income or capital gains, etc. at the time of withdrawal partner's (see, etc.).

In light of the above precedents, in full view of the health stand, Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire arguments as to this case, Eul, a joint purchaser of the real estate of this case, shall transfer 3/5 of its share of the real estate of this case to Suwon District Court Sejong District Court (2006Gahap2300) against the seller of this case.

After filing a claim suit, the above court appealed after being dismissed on June 27, 2008. On account of various circumstances on July 10, 2009, the appellate court rendered a judgment of dismissal of the claim, and the plaintiff, BBB, and DD purchased the real estate of this case jointly, and purchased the real estate of this case to jointly carry on business to acquire profits through resale the entire real estate of this case, and thereby, purchased the real estate of this case from the partnership with intent to jointly carry on business to acquire profits. Thus, the plaintiff, BB, and DD purchased the real estate of this case from the partnership with intent of BB, and DD with intent to jointly carry on business to purchase profits through purchase the whole real estate of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff, BB, and DD are related to the right to claim ownership transfer registration of this case to the real estate of this case. Since the lawsuit is a necessary co-litigation and thus, it constitutes unlawful lawsuit by BB, one of the co-owners, one of which is not the whole co-litigants, and the appeal was dismissed.

3. Conclusion

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