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

A. On February 10, 2012, the Defendant: (a) on December 22, 2005, transferred to the Plaintiff KRW 00,000,000, and (b) on December 22, 2005, KRW 00,000 (hereinafter referred to as “second-party land”); (c) on December 10, 200, KRW 60/6240 among the 159-1, and KRW 160,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant case”; and (d) on December 10, 200, KRW 100,101 (hereinafter referred to as “second-party land”); (d) on December 22, 200, KRW 1,200, KRW 00, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 200, and the acquisition value of the instant land was calculated as the acquisition value of the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “acquisition value”).

B. On April 5, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but received a dismissal ruling on November 21, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant disposition was unlawful after the lapse of the extinctive prescription.

(2) The Plaintiff established 00 comprehensive development company (hereinafter “the company of this case”) along with 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 10, 100 and 10 parcels (hereinafter “the separate land of this case”) for the electric source housing development project, and concluded a sales contract for the land of this case between 00, 00-3 and 10, and 10. Kim 00 returned the entire purchase price for the land of this case and 1, 2 to the Plaintiff, as the third party was to purchase the separate land of this case at a higher price, and the Plaintiff rescinded the sales contract for the land of this case 1, 2. The Plaintiff was only returned the purchase price originally paid from Kim 00 and did not take gains from transfer. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful since the person who purchased the land of this case from 100, the representative director of the company of this case or the representative director of the company of this case, and thus, the disposition of transfer income tax against the Plaintiff is unlawful.

(4) With respect to the sales contract for the instant separate land, the instant company (or 00) paid 50 million won as a check on the contract date to Kim 00 (or 00). On April 16, 2004, the instant company deposited the passbook with no passbook on April 16, 2004, and on April 22, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Line0 paid 00 million won as a check after directly searching for Kim 00 on April 22, 2004, the total down payment paid by the Plaintiff and Line 00 million won is 0 million won in total.

The following facts may be acknowledged if the evidence as mentioned above showed Gap evidence 1 to 6, Gap evidence 10, and 11 of evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 5-2, Eul evidence 5-4 through 6, Eul evidence 8-1 to 3, and witness evidence 00.

(1) Ownership of land No. 1 of this case

(A) The registration conversion was made with a 00 Risan 000-1 forest land of 20628 m20 m20 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m20402 m20 on May 4, 2010, among these written judgments;

1) In relation to Kim 00's shares 2060/6240 shares, the Nanwon District Court Security Office (hereinafter referred to as "Sansung Branch Registry") was received on December 10, 1996, No. 34403, Dec. 10, 1996;

2) In relation to the portion of 4120/6240 shares, which is the husband of Kim 00, the Seongbuk registry office of May 28, 1997, the receipt of No. 14614 on May 28, 1997;

3) As to the largest 00 shares 60/6240 shares (hereinafter “the shares in this case”), the Sungsung registry office completed the registration of transfer of each share ownership under No. 10027 of April 10, 2002.

(B) The maximum 00 completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 10026 of April 10, 2002 with respect to the registration of an Ansan registry office as to the registration of a 496 square meters of a forest of 00 Ri, 0000 (200 m2, May 4, 2010, but only 00 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000).

(C) With respect to the instant share, the registration of transfer of ownership of an shares was completed on February 8, 2006 by Andong registry office No. 4957, which was received on February 14, 2006, as of February 8, 2006, by Andong registry office No. 5522, which was received on February 17, 2006, and as of February 8, 2006.

(D) Regarding 00 Risan 160, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on February 8, 2006 by Masung registry office No. 4957 of February 14, 2006, which was due to sale and purchase on February 8, 2006, Masung registry office No. 5522 of February 17, 2006, which was received on February 17, 2006.

(2) Ownership of the instant land No. 2

(A) The maximum 00 square meters completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 26280 on December 21, 1993 with respect to 116 square meters prior to 971.

(B) The maximum 00 square meters was completed on November 25, 1996 by the Sungsung registry office with respect to the 922 square meters prior to 00 Ri 1001.

(C) Regarding 00 Ri 971, Kim 00 (which is deemed to be a title trustee of Maim00; hereinafter the same shall apply) completed each registration of the transfer of ownership on the ground of sale and purchase as of November 16, 2004, No. 51500, which was received on November 17, 2004, as of 5234, which was received on February 16, 2006, from Ansung registry office, and No. 5234, which was completed on February 8, 2006.

(D) Regarding 00 Ri 1001, Kim 00 completed each registration for the transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on November 17, 2004, No. 51500, Nov. 16, 2004, and No. 00, Jun. 24, 2011, No. 34516, Jul. 25, 201, respectively.

(3) The sales contract relationship between the instant separate land and the instant land Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”).

(A) On March 24, 2004, 000, the representative director of the instant company entered into a sales contract for the instant separate land (as referred to in Nos. 2 through Nos. 11 in the separate land list) with the purchase price of KRW 00,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant separate sales contract”) from 00,000,000 at the time of the contract, and the company agreed to pay KRW 00,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 0,000,000 at the time of May 30, 2004, the remainder payment of KRW 0,000,000,000 for each of the instant separate land (as referred to in Nos. 1 in the separate land list) to the seller, based on the sales contract of the instant separate land. (b) The company paid KRW 00,000,000 as part of the down payment.

(C) On March 25, 2004, the representative director of the instant company concluded a sales contract to purchase the instant land from Maximum00 (Representative MaximumO) to 80 million won, and paid the down payment to Maximum 00 million won on the same day, and the balance of 00 million won on June 7, 2004, respectively.

(D) On April 3, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract to purchase the instant land No. 2 from the maximum 00 million won, and paid 00 million won to the maximum 00 million won.

(4) Money transaction relationship after each of the above sales contracts was concluded

(A) The instant company was proposing to purchase the instant separate land from Park 00 at a higher price than 00 while it was not paying to Kim 00 and le00 the remainder of the down payment based on the instant separate sales contract.

(B) Accordingly, the instant company (or the Plaintiff), Kim00, and Yoon00 agreed to cancel the instant separate sales contract, and agreed to return to the Plaintiff KRW 00,000,000, which was paid as part of the down payment of the instant separate sales contract.

(C) On July 21, 2005, Kim 00 and Yoon 00 paid 0 billion won to the plaintiff on July 21, 2005, "00 m. 35 m. ,000 m. ,000 m. ,000 m. ,000 m. ,000 m. ,000 m. ,000 m. (60 m.) and m. ,000 m. , including part of the down payment, were paid m. ,00 m. ,00 m. ,00 m. ,00 m. , 200 m. ,00 m. ,00 m. ,00 m. ,00 m. ,00 m. , 200 m. ,00 m. ,00 m. , 2005 m. m. ,000.

(E) On December 22, 2005, Kim 00 paid 00 million won to the Plaintiff (one hundred million won check, one million won check). On December 22, 2005, the Plaintiff issued a receipt (Evidence A8) that the Plaintiff received 00 million won as the price of the instant land to Kim 00.

(5) Whether the Plaintiff reported capital gains tax

The Plaintiff did not report the tax base and amount of capital gains tax regarding the transfer of the land Nos. 1 and 2.

C. Determination

(1) Determination on the assertion of extinctive prescription

(A) No national tax may be assessed after the lapse of five years from the date on which the national tax can be assessed. However, if a taxpayer evades national tax or obtains a refund or deduction by fraud or other unlawful means, it may not be assessed after the lapse of ten years, and if a taxpayer fails to file a tax base return within the statutory due date of return, the disposition taken after the expiration of the statutory due date of return shall be null and void (Supreme Court Decision 2008Du10522 Decided December 23, 2010), and the disposition taken after the expiration of the statutory due date of imposition of national tax shall be null and void (Supreme Court Decision 2008Du10522 Decided December 23, 200), and the transfer date of the first and second lands of this case from the Plaintiff to the Kim 00 as of December 22, 205, the statutory due date of return or the due date of submission on the capital gains tax base and tax amount on each of the above lands shall be deemed to have been lawfully made within 206.

(A) The term "transfer" under the Income Tax Act refers to the actual transfer of assets at a cost due to sale, exchange, investment in kind in a corporation, etc. without relation to the registration or enrollment of the assets. The transfer income tax is imposed on the premise that the transfer of assets and income therefrom accrue. If the sales contract is terminated upon the premise that the transfer of assets would not take place, the effect of the sales contract would be lost and the transfer of assets would not take place (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu944 delivered on December 22, 1992). (B) In addition, each of the facts found in the record are as follows: (i) the cancellation of the sales contract and the delegation of the sale contract pursuant thereto are not explicitly stated in the record (it cannot be deemed that there is a personal relationship that can be implied delegation). (ii) The cancellation of the sales contract with respect to the land sold by Kim 100, 1000, 200, and 200, and the Plaintiff did not have any reason to return the purchase price.

③ As to the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was not restored in the name of the seller, the largest 00, and the maximum 00

④ There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff or Kim 00 declared the intention of rescission on the land of this case

⑤ The total amount paid by the Plaintiff to Kim 00 as part of the purchase price of the instant separate land appears to be KRW 200 million, unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion (or the Plaintiff’s assertion that No. 6 was 00,000,000,000,000,000 won (the Plaintiff’s testimony of the receipt and the witness’s testimony of 00

④ According to the instant performance memorandum, the content of the instant performance angle can be seen as an agreement on trade between the Plaintiff and Kim 00 with respect to the land Nos. 1 and 2, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 00 million to the Plaintiff. In fact, the Plaintiff paid KRW 00,000,000 on July 21, 2005; KRW 00,000,000 on September 26, 2005; and KRW 00,000,000,000 on December 22, 2005; and 80,000,000,000,000, which is the amount written in the performance angle of this case’s performance statement, are almost identical to KRW 8,00,000,000 on December 22, 205.

9. The fact that there are no other transactions between the Plaintiff, Kim 00, and Yoon 00 other than the land in this case.

(10) Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the Plaintiff had already implemented the instant land development project before the establishment of the company, or had no business registered for the said project, the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant land Nos. 1 and 2 from the maximum of 00 and 00, and the Plaintiff can be deemed to have transferred the instant land No. 1 and 2 to Y0 on December 22, 2005, which is the final date he received money from Kim 00 (the Plaintiff received KRW 00,000,000 from 0). Thus, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant land to the Plaintiff on September 26, 2005 is likely to be deemed to have transferred the instant land No. 1 and 200,000,000 won to the Plaintiff, regardless of the fact that the Plaintiff actually purchased the instant land on July 21, 2005, the Plaintiff’s sale and purchase price of the instant land at KRW 100,000,000,00.

According to the above, the plaintiff transferred the land of this case to Kim 00 on December 22, 2005, to 00 million won.

(4) Determination as to the transfer of the instant land No. 2 and the price therefor

According to the above, the plaintiff paid 00 million won to Kim 00 as part of the down payment of the land of this case, and the plaintiff received 00 million won from Kim 00 as the purchase price of the land of this case (= 00 million won + 00,000,000 won). The above 00 million won is deemed to be the sum of the down payment refund of the land of this case and the purchase price of the land of this case 2,00,000 won (as seen in light of general transaction practices, setting the purchase price of the land of this case up 2,00,000 won to the plaintiff, but in light of the general transaction practices, Kim 0 is deemed to have no other transactional relationship between the plaintiff and Kim 2,000,000 won, the sum of the transfer price of the land of this case is 2,000,000 won, which is 2,000,000 won in total,00 won in relation to the land of this case (= 2,00,00,00,00,000 won.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiff transferred the land No. 1 in this case to Kim 00 on December 22, 2005, and the land No. 2 in this case on December 22, 2005 is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.