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

(a) Details of the disposition;

(1) On April 26, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired 47-1 forest land of 71,603 square meters in Gyeonggi-do ○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○-1 forest land (hereinafter “instant real estate”) (on November 5, 2009, it became subject to registration conversion with 72,603 square meters in forest land of 378-3 forest land of 5, 2009; hereinafter “instant real estate”). Thereafter, on January 9, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with ○○○, Inc. (hereinafter “foreign company”) to transfer the instant real estate in KRW 1,949,00,000, and on January 12, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to the Nonparty company.

(2) On March 31, 2006, the Plaintiff calculated the acquisition value and transfer value as the actual transaction value on the ground that the instant real estate constitutes real estate located within the speculative designated area, and calculated the transfer income tax as KRW 151,216.201, and paid the Defendant a preliminary return and payment of the tax base of transfer income for the year 2006.

(3) After that, on December 17, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction with the Defendant to the effect that the transfer value and acquisition value of the instant real estate subject to the application of special taxation for capital gains tax under Article 85 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8146 of Dec. 30, 2006) may be based on the market price based on the standard market price. In calculating capital gains tax based on the standard market price, the transfer income tax amount is KRW 3,90,778, and accordingly, the difference between the initial and the initial tax amount paid is 147,315,423 won.

(4) Accordingly, on February 11, 2010, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim for correction on the ground that the Nonparty Company, the transferee of the instant real estate, was not designated as a public project operator at the time of transfer, and was not subject to the provisions of the instant special taxation.

B. Designation of Nonparty Company’s project implementer and authorization of implementation plan

(1) On April 2006, the non-party company entered into a service contract related to the business of authorization and permission of golf courses with the ○○○○○○○○○○○, including the instant real estate, in order to construct golf courses in the △△△△△△△○, △△△△△, and the instant real estate. Around May 2006 and around September 2006, the non-party company proposed the change of the specific use area for the construction of golf courses and the proposal for the decision of urban planning facilities to propose the change of the urban planning facilities

(2) On November 19, 2007, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do determined and publicly announced the △△△ Urban Management Plan with the content of changing the specific use area and determining the urban planning facilities for the establishment of golf courses in the ○○○○○○-gun, including the △△△△△, △△△△, △△△△, and the instant real estate.

(3) On February 26, 2008, 2008, the head of △△△△△△△△ announced the inspection on February 26, 2008 to designate a non-party company as a project implementer for the construction of a site for a golf club site and authorize the implementation plan. On April 21, 2008, he/she designated a project implementer and processed

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1 through 7, 9 through 11, 13 through 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the fact that there is no legal basis to limit the project operator to the business operator who was designated or authorized to implement the project under the special taxation provisions of this case, and that it is necessary to reduce or exempt taxes from the transferor of the land by cooperating in the implementation of the project before the designation of the project operator and the authorization of the implementation plan, the disposition of this case for the reason that the non-party company

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In order to become a project implementer under the Special Provisions on Taxation of this case, the person who was designated as a project implementer by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, etc. is deemed to be the Plaintiff’s assertion. However, the special provisions on taxation of this case cannot be applied retroactively solely on the ground that the transferee was designated as a project implementer, and the special provisions on taxation of this case can be applied only when the transferee is already deemed a project implementer at the time of transfer, and the special provisions on taxation of this case can be applied only to the case where the transferee is already deemed a project implementer at the time of transfer of this case. In light of the facts acknowledged earlier, there is no basis to deem that the non-party company had the substance that can be seen as a project implementer

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate on the ground that the special taxation provision of this case cannot be applied to the transfer of the real estate of this case.

3. Conclusion

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