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

Cheong-gu Office

Each disposition taken by the Defendant on January 15, 2009 against the Plaintiff on the global income tax in 2003, the global income tax in 2004, the global income tax in 2005, the global income tax in 2005, the global income tax in 2006, the global income tax in 2006, and the global income tax in 2007, the global income tax in 200, and the global income tax in 2007, shall be revoked.

(a) Sale and purchase of real estate;

(1) The Plaintiff: (a) purchased a total of 995 square meters of 472-1 and 200 square meters (hereinafter “1 land”); (b) sold 20 OO on July 6, 1997 to 200; and (c) completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 2, 2004; (b) purchased 30 O-20 m20 m20 m27 m27 m20 m27 m27 m20 m27 m27 m27 m26 m206 m2.00.0.00.00 m27 m27 m20 m27 m20 m27 m20 m27 m39 m239 m23,021 m2.

(1) From May 15, 2008 to August 27, 2008, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and imposed tax on the Defendant as business income on the capital gains of land Nos. 1 and 2, and ② purchased land No. 3 in the aggregate of OO, OO, 4 in the aggregate of OOO, and 5 in the aggregate of OOOO, the third land was accounted for the purchase of OO, 4 in the aggregate of OO, and 5 in the accounts of the purchase of land No. 3 in the aggregate of OOO, OO, and 5 in the accounts of the purchase of land No. 4 in the aggregate of OOO, OO(OO - OO - OO - 3,184 square meters in the area of land held at the end of the period, and notified OO and the support for appropriation of the taxation data.

(2) Accordingly, on January 15, 2009, the defendant issued a correction and notice of global income tax (including additional tax) in 2003 to 2009 as follows (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") to the plaintiff on January 15, 209, see three pages of the decision in the list.

(3) The Plaintiff appealed and requested a trial on March 26, 2010, but was dismissed as the Tax Tribunal on September 27, 2012.

Facts that there is no dispute with recognition, Gap's evidence 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), Eul's evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As to the business income

(A) As to real estate trading

① The Plaintiff held the land No. 1 for about 7 years, the land No. 2 for about 10 years, the land No. 1 and No. 2 located within the Military Protection Facility Act, the land No. 1 and No. 3 were farmland for the period of possession, and the land No. 1 and No. 2 were farmland for the purpose of possession, and the land No. 1 and No. 2 were farmland for the purpose of possession, and the land No. 1 and No. 2 were farmland for the purpose of possession, and the land No. 1 and No. 2 cannot be deemed an additional site for apartment business because there are several lots of land for the purpose of possession, such as OO-type 54, etc. for the purpose of apartment business, and the land No. 1 was not constructed as the opposite to village residents, and the land No. 2 did not perform the act of increasing the value. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that real estate sales business was unlawful, and (b) the

Even if income from the sale and purchase of land Nos. 1 and 2 falls under business income, the taxpayer is Kim J who actually purchased and sold the land Nos. 1 and 2, and the instant disposition against the Plaintiff is unlawful against the principle of substantial taxation.

(2) As to the necessary deduction of loan interest as necessary expenses

“The Plaintiff, on the ground of land Nos. 3, 4, and 5, did not know whether it is a fixed business asset for the building project or inventory assets, and did not account for the interest on the loan in addition to the acquisition value of land No. 3, 4, and 5, and there was no intention to reduce the business income from real estate sales by overappropriating the acquisition value. Therefore, the OOO of the interest on the loan incurred in relation to land Nos. 3, 4, and 5 should be deducted from the necessary expenses for the business income.”

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Status of the Plaintiff’s land purchase and sale

(A) From 197 to 2007, the Plaintiff purchased a total of 58,417 square meters of land, including O-Myeon O-type O 68-16 forest land and 4,132 square meters, on 35 occasions from 1997 to 2007. The Plaintiff sold a total of 44,804 square meters of land, including 1129-7 square meters of land, by changing the land category into a factory site, on 77 occasions, such as new construction, sale, or division transfer of a factory building.

(B) On November 10, 2001, the Plaintiff started and operated each of the successful construction in K K construction in 1017, and in 123-2, the same Ri on August 21, 2003.

(C) The Plaintiff’s domicile on the certified resident registration abstract changes as follows.

See Table 5 see Court Decision 5

(2) Construction and sale of housing and commercial buildings by the Plaintiff and their families

(A) The status of the business operated by the plaintiff and his family members is as shown in attached Form 2.

(B) From 1984 to 2007, the Plaintiff and their families acquired land as shown in attached Forms 3 and 4 and sold them after constructing houses, commercial buildings, factories, etc.

(3) Current status, etc. of land 1 and 2

(A) The land Nos. 1 and 2 is located within 25 km south of the Military Demarcation Line in the Military Bases and Protection of Military Installations Act Article 5 (1) 2 (a) of the Protection of Military Installations Act, and (b) the land Nos. 1 and 472-1 and 2 are not adjacent to roads around April 2013.

(d) Development activities, etc. of first land;

(A) On March 3, 2001, the Plaintiff requested a consultation on the diversion of farmland to part of the first land for the purpose of exclusive use of the multi-family house site creation. On April 25, 2001, the Plaintiff received a notification of the construction permission including the permission on the diversion of farmland from the mayor of the Pakistan. The Plaintiff paid the farmland creation cost and the diversion charges on July 31, 2001.

(B) On June 8, 2004, the Plaintiff sold land to the UCC et al. and two other parties on June 1, 2004, and the land transaction permission was rejected, or when the building permission was revoked, the cause thereof becomes null and void without penalty. A special agreement was concluded to succeed to the status of the Plaintiff

(5) Development activities, etc. on land 2;

(A) On July 27, 2006, the Plaintiff: (a) sold the second land to EE and FF; and (b) made a special agreement with the seller to set up a written consent to land use and to grant it to the seller; (c) around August 27, 2006, the Plaintiff drawn up and issued a written consent to superficies and a written consent to land use to E and FF.

(B) Around January 2007, EE and HaF requested a consultation on the diversion of land among part of the land 2 and OO-Eup 236-4, 650 square meters, among 193 square meters, for the purpose of creating a multi-family housing site (multi-household), and obtained permission for development from the mayor of Pakistan on March 16, 2007. EE and HaF paid the farmland diversion charges on March 29, 2007.

(C) On April 26, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with E and FF.

(6) Loans, etc.

(A) The Plaintiff received a loan from an agricultural cooperative and disbursed its interest as follows.

Details of loans - Court Decision 7 see Supreme Court Decision

(B) From 2003 to 2006, the Plaintiff filed a business income report on the total amount of loans and OOOO as necessary expenses with respect to KK and successful construction as follows.

Details of reports - Court Decision 7~8 see Supreme Court Decision

(7) Fact confirmation, etc.

(A) A fact-finding certificate of July 3, 2008 of thisG

○ On April 18, 1997, the contract was entered into to transfer the land No. 3 to OOOOL and to two other parties. In fact, the contract was entered into in the presence of the Kim JJ and Kim J's driver, who is aware of the contract.

On April 18, 1997 and June 3, 1997, respectively, the down payment and intermediate payment were paid as a check. The remainder was paid as a check by EM, the mother of Kim J, on July 18, 1997, and around three months after the date of payment under the contract, as the check. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 15550, Oct. 21, 1997; Presidential Decree No. 15083, Oct. 21, 1997; Presidential Decree No. 15083, Oct. 21, 1997>

○○ received the balance on October 21, 1997, but there were differences of interests arising from the late payment of the balance, and thus no registration of ownership transfer was made immediately. On August 2002, the documents related to the registration of ownership transfer was delivered to KimJ, upon request of Kim J, to change the purchaser from YL and 2 others to the Plaintiff, the purchaser was issued and delivered as the Plaintiff on the certificate of personal seal impression for real estate sale. There was no fact that the buyer separately prepared a sales contract concerning the change from Y et al. to 2 to the Plaintiff.

(B) A letter of July 28, 2008, issued by Qap II.

○ On October 11, 2002, the sales contract was concluded to transfer the land No. 5 to the Plaintiff to the OOO(OOO). On October 11, 2002, the contract deposit OOO on October 11, 2002, the intermediate payment OOOO on November 1, 2002, and the remainder OOOOO on November 20, 202 were received respectively.

○ There is no record of preparing or sealing a real estate sales contract presented by a tax official, and there is no amount received from the Plaintiff in addition to the purchase price OOO. In addition, the seal affixed on the same contract is a seal that he/she does not have any knowledge of being used.

(C) On December 2008, the Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) planned, led, and implemented the Kim J to evade the Plaintiff’s comprehensive income tax; and (b) filed an accusation against the Plaintiff and Kim J with the Prosecutor’s Office.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), Eul's 1 through 10, and 12 through 20 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

(1) As to the business income

(A) Whether the income from the transfer of real estate is business income or capital gains under the Income Tax Act shall be determined according to social norms by taking into account the transferor’s acquisition and holding status of real estate, creation, existence of transfer, size and frequency of transfer, mode, other party, etc., as well as the continuity and repetition of business activities to determine whether the transfer aims at profit. In making such determination, not only the transfer of real estate concerned but also the transfer of real estate owned by the transferor should take into account all the circumstances before and after the time when the transfer took place throughout the entire real estate owned by the transferor (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du21768, Jul. 22, 2010).

(B) It is recognized that the Plaintiff had been in possession of the land 1 for about seven years from 197 to June 21, 2004, for about 20 years from 197 to April 26, 2007, for the first and second lands located within the restricted protection area within 25 km of the Military Demarcation Line, and that the Plaintiff had been in possession of the land 1 for about 7 years from 1997 to 204, for the purpose of sale and purchase of the land 200, for which the Plaintiff had been in possession of the land 472-1 and 200, for the purpose of sale and purchase of the land 100 to 400, for the purpose of sale and sale of the land 197 to 250, for which the Plaintiff had been in possession of the land 47, including the land 47,000 square meters of the land 20, for the purpose of sale and sale of the land 197 to 35,07, etc.

Since it is reasonable to see that it was conducted as part of business activities, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(2) As to the violation of the substance over form principle

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes intends to impose a tax burden on a person who actually reverts, not a person who actually reverts income, so the ownership of income shall not be determined by the formal business name or legal relationship, but by the relationship of attribution of profits arising from actual business activities: Provided, That the burden of proving that there is a separate person who actually reverts income, not an external name, exists in the name of the nominal owner (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu635, Oct. 28, 1987).

In light of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff acquired and transferred the instant land No. I and II under his name; (b) the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (c) the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) reported that the Plaintiff evaded the Plaintiff’s comprehensive income tax by planning, leading, and implementing the tax evasion; and (d) filed a complaint against the Plaintiff and Kim J; and (b) the Plaintiff and Kim J did not deem the taxpayer to be Kim J; (b) the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the actual nominal owner is Kim J; and (c) there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise; (d) the income from the sale and purchase of land Nos. 1 and 2

(3) Regarding the necessary deduction of loan interest as necessary expenses

(A) The land used for sale by a real estate sales businessman is not used for a company's business and is classified as inventory assets, which are possessed for sale or production in the normal course of business (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu16950, Jul. 25, 1997). In a case where the calculation of global income tax on a real estate sales businessman is based on the global income tax system, the land and buildings used for sale by the real estate sales businessman do not constitute fixed assets for business, and is excluded from the calculation of interest of construction funds under Article 33 subparagraph 10 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009); Article 75 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010). Thus, even if the interest paid on loans required for the purchase and construction of the land, etc. was finalized after the date of completion of the construction or building construction, it should be deducted from the sales price (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du414.

(B) In light of the following: (a) the instant case is not only inconsistent with the health stand, (b) the amount accounted for more than the actual acquisition value, but also the interest on loans (OOOO) claimed by the Plaintiff; (b) the Plaintiff reported the business income by including the total amount of interest on loans from 2003 to 2006 in the necessary expenses; (c) the five land was made double sales contract without the seller’s consent; and (d) the date and time of loan differs from the acquisition date of land No. 3, 4, and 5, it cannot be deemed that the interest on loans claimed by the Plaintiff related to the purchase of land No. 3, 4, and 5. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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