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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition rejecting capital gains tax correction against the plaintiff on January 21, 2009 shall be revoked.

The reasoning of this court's decision is that "the defendant on September 29, 2008," which is "YA and KimB on September 29, 2008," which is "YA and KimB on September 29, 2008," and the reasoning of the court's decision is the same as that of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion in addition to the judgment on September 29, 2008, and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

2. Additional determination on the plaintiff's petition

(a) Additional judgment on the master of acquisition time;

The plaintiff asserts that the preliminary return of the tax base of capital gains on the land of this case was wrong, and it is not clear that the date of the settlement of the price for the land of this case was made. However, the plaintiff asserted that the purchaser himself/herself was the date of settlement of the price or did not submit the data on the said date (the head of the complaint also stated that "in the absence of the contract due to the death of the transferor, the former owner of the land of this case" died on May 9, 199).

In addition, even in the case of registration of transfer of ownership under the Act on Special Measures for the Prevention of Change of Ownership, the presumption of ownership transfer registration is recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da971, Jul. 24, 1979). Such presumption of existence and validity of grounds for registration (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da42980, Feb. 27, 1996). There is no evidence to acknowledge that the above ground for registration is false (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da42980, Feb. 27, 1996). Even if the Plaintiff purchased the land of this case from CC on Dec. 10, 1990 pursuant to the No. 3, the determination whether the refusal disposition is legitimate shall be made depending on whether the tax base and tax amount recorded in the tax base return exceeds legitimate tax base and tax amount (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du13497, Dec. 24, 2008). The time when the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case constitutes the tax base and tax amount exceeding the tax base and tax amount as stated in the tax base report in the year.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. Additional determination on a proposal for acquisition value

The Plaintiff asserted that the amount of KRW 316,38,889, which was reported as the acquisition value of the instant land, is not the actual transaction value as it falls under Article 97(1)1 (b) and Article 114(7) of the Income Tax Act and Articles 163(12) and 176-2(1) and 176-2(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010). The Plaintiff asserted that the amount of KRW 316,38,889, which was reported as the acquisition value of the instant land, is not the amount calculated as the standard market price at the time of transfer, at the time of acquisition, at the time of transfer (hereinafter referred to as “converted value”). The conversion amount of KRW 670,00,000 at the actual transaction price at the time of transfer (=5,100,800,00).

According to Article 114 of the Income Tax Act and Article 176-2 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, where the transfer value or acquisition value is determined based on the actual transaction price and it is impossible to recognize or confirm the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition, the transfer value or acquisition value shall be determined, in cases where there are cases of trading of assets having uniformity or similarity with the relevant assets within 3 months before and after the transfer date or acquisition date, the said value; ② in cases where there are appraisal values assessed by 2 or more appraisal corporations with respect to the relevant assets within 3 months after the transfer date or acquisition date, and where there exist appraisal values recognized as reliable, the said appraisal values may be determined or corrected based on the standard market price.

The Plaintiff asserted 632,77,7777 won, which is the amount calculated pursuant to Article 176-2 (1) and (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, with respect to the acquisition value of the instant land as of May 30, 2008. The Plaintiff did not submit any data by which the acquisition value can be known. In light of the acquisition value of the instant land as of January 10, 1990, it is difficult to view that there is any data by which the acquisition value can be calculated according to the transaction example value.

Therefore, even if the actual transaction price reported by the Plaintiff at the time of the scheduled return of capital gains is deemed to be different from the fact, the Defendant should calculate the acquisition price based on the conversion price, and as seen earlier, the acquisition price reported by the Plaintiff based on the actual transaction price is the same as the conversion price. As such, it cannot be deemed that the tax base and tax amount entered in the original return of tax base

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable as the plaintiff's claim is groundless, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.