2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

A. On April 24, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired ownership on the gift of 1367 large 67.1 square meters and 1377 large 65.1 square meters in Sung-nam-dong, Sungnam-dong, Dong-dong, 1397, and 1377 large 65.1 square meters. On May 10, 198, the Plaintiff acquired ownership on the above ground building (1/2 equity) and transferred each of the above land and buildings to 690 million won on March 26, 2007 and the 30th of the same month.

B. On May 29, 2007, the Plaintiff made a preliminary return and payment of capital gains tax of KRW 39,94,610,000,000,000 as the actual transaction value, and the acquisition value as KRW 468,365,261, which is the conversion value based on the standard market price (total of KRW 328,194,629, + building KRW 140,170,632).

C. According to the audit conducted by the National Tax Service on May 2008, the Defendant calculated the acquisition value of each land donated by the Plaintiff as the method of assessment under Article 163(9) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (the acquisition value of each land is KRW 135,464,400, and the acquisition value of each building is KRW 140,170,632), and corrected and notified the transfer income tax for 2007 53,434,730 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). In addition, the Defendant imposed the resident tax amount of KRW 5,343,470 along with the said transfer income tax.

D. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on May 27, 2009, and received a decision of dismissal on July 9, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Whether a part of the lawsuit demanding the revocation of disposition imposing the resident tax is legal;

According to Article 177-4(1), (2), and (5) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8864 of Feb. 29, 2008), "income tax" is a local tax to be paid to the head of a Si/Gun (the head of a Gu in the case of a Special Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City; hereinafter the same shall apply) having jurisdiction over the place of payment of income tax, and where the head of a tax office collects income tax by the method of imposition and notice in accordance with the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Income Tax Act, it shall be deemed that the head of a Si/Gun has imposed and notified the resident tax to be imposed on him/her, even if the head of a tax office collects income tax by the method of imposition and notice in accordance with the correction, decision, etc. under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Income Tax Act." Thus, the defendant of an appeal litigation seeking the revocation

Therefore, the part of the cancellation of the disposition imposing the heavy resident tax in this case is only limited to those who are not eligible for defendant, and it is also illegal.

B. Whether imposition of capital gains tax is lawful

1) Plaintiff’s assertion

Article 163(9) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act that stipulates that the actual transaction price required for acquiring donated assets shall be deemed the actual transaction price based on the supplementary assessment methods under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as of the date of donation does not have any delegation by law, and Article 100(1) of the Income Tax Act (where the transfer price is based on the actual transaction price in calculating gains from transfer, the acquisition price shall be based on the actual transaction price) is invalid because it violates the same standard principle under Article 100(1) of the Income Tax Act

2) Relevant statutes

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

3) Determination

In full view of the purport of Articles 94(1), 96(1), 97(1)1(a)1(b) and (5) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9924, Dec. 31, 2009); and the text of Article 163(9) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, where transferred assets are calculated based on the actual transaction value, as general assets other than inherited or donated assets, the transfer value cannot be confirmed based on the actual transaction value, appraisal value or conversion value prescribed by the Presidential Decree if the actual transaction value required for the acquisition cannot be determined based on the actual transaction value. However, in applying the main sentence of Article 97(1)1(a) of the former Income Tax Act to the assets inherited or donated pursuant to the main sentence of Article 163(9) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, there is no separate provision as to the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition. Accordingly, in applying the provisions of Article 97(1)1(a) of the Inheritance Tax Act to the inherited or donated assets at the date of inheritance or donation.

Therefore, the main text of Article 163(9) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that matters necessary for the calculation of necessary expenses such as "the scope of actual transactions for acquisition" such as "the scope of the amount of necessary expenses" shall not be deemed as a provision for invalidation without delegation by the mother law, which is based on Article 97(5) of the former Income Tax Act, which is delegated so that it can be prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In addition, where assets inherited or donated are transferred, the value corresponding to the tax base of inheritance tax or gift tax (the value assessed pursuant to Articles 60 through 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as of the date of commencement of inheritance or donation) may prevent tax evasion or double taxation only if the transfer value exceeds the above value when the necessary expenses of the relevant assets are recognized as necessary expenses and the transfer value exceeds the above value (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du1326, Oct. 26, 2007).

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the disposition of resident tax, and the remaining claim of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit.