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

A. On August 27, 2002, the Plaintiff sold land and a house on seven lots outside 000 m2, Nam-si, Y 000 m2. On November 6, 2002, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer value at KRW 000 based on the actual transaction value as 5/11 shares of the above real estate (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Tax Office for less than one year. On November 6, 2002, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer value at KRW 00 based on the standard market price, and filed a return on the transfer income tax base with the total amount of KRW 000,000 after calculating the transfer value by applying the standard market price.

B. On July 11, 2004, the LA reported a standard for taxation of capital gains tax on June 20, 2007 after transferring the above eight parcels of land. The LA reported the acquisition price of the instant land as KRW 000 by applying the actual transaction price.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant confirmed on June 3, 201 that the maximumA was different from the amount reported by the Plaintiff as the acquisition value of the instant land and the amount reported by the Plaintiff at the transfer value, and confirmed on June 3, 201, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 000 of the transfer income tax for the year 2002 by denying the original reported transfer value and applying KRW 000 with the transfer value (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On August 31, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Defendant, and the Defendant decided to re-examine the sales price on September 30, 201, and notified the Plaintiff of the result of the decision of re-audit that the instant disposition was justifiable on October 28, 201 through re-audit.

E. On June 26, 2012, while the lawsuit in this case was pending, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the disposition in this case with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the grounds of the lapse of the period of request on August 30, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 12 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it did not go through a request for examination or adjudgment under Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which is a previous trial procedure. However, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case on October 23, 2012 and filed a modification to the purport of seeking the nullification of the disposition of this case on October 23, 2012, and the lawsuit seeking the invalidity

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The transfer price of the instant land originally reported by the Plaintiff is consistent with the actual transaction price taking into account the real estate price at the time. Nevertheless, the Defendant considered the actual transaction price as KRW 000 based only on the acquisition price of the instant land reported by the largestA and the sales contract (Evidence A3) that was not prepared by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant disposition is null and void because there is a defect that is gross and apparent in calculating the transfer price.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff reported the tax base of capital gains tax at KRW 000 on the basis of the actual transaction price after Company A, who purchased the instant land from the Plaintiff, re-sales it again, and the Defendant visited an official brokerage office near the instant land at the time of 2002 and confirmed on-site, that the market price of the instant land is similar to approximately KRW 00,000 for the acquisition price reported by the Plaintiff at the time of 202, and even the sales contract (Evidence A No. 3) made between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the purchase price of real estate including the instant land is 00, and is similar to the acquisition price reported by the Plaintiff or the market price at the time of the Plaintiff’s report, and there is no clear evidence to deny the validity of the said sales contract, and the fact that the transaction confirmation (Evidence A 1) submitted by the Plaintiff appears to have been prepared separately from the said sales contract, it is reasonable to deem the actual transaction price of the instant land as KRW 00.

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

3. Conclusion

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