2. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of lawsuit.

피고는， 원고가 2005. 4. 18. 조BBBB로부터 경기 여주군 000 답 621㎡， 같은 리 000 답 2，830㎡(이하 '이 사건 토지'라 한다)를 000원에 매수하여 그 중 1/2 지분을 2005. 6. 24. 최CC에게 000원에 매도하였음을 이유로， 2012. 7. 1. 원고에게 000원의 양도소득세를 부과하는 처분(이하 '이 사건 처분'이라 한다)을 하였다.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The buyer of the instant land was EE that operates DD information, not the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was merely an employee of DD information in the sales contract for the instant land. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the actual owner of the instant land is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to the evidence Nos. 6-2 and 5, evidence Nos. 7-7, evidence Nos. 13 and 8-2, evidence Nos. 9, and evidence Nos. 8, and the court's fact-finding on the national bank, the land of this case has been transferred ownership registration in EE and 1/2 shares in the name of the largestCC, and the plaintiff has not been registered ownership transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and E are in a de facto marital relationship with the real estate development project, and several real estate were registered in the name of E, and the dispute concerning the ownership of real estate between the plaintiff and E occurred with the failure of de facto marital relationship between the plaintiff and E, until the lawsuit (this court 2008Ga7694, Seoul High Court 2009Na30689) and the fact-finding of this case's transfer registration in the name of EF and the plaintiff, the land of this case was transferred to the court 2008.

(2) However, the following circumstances are considered comprehensively considering the entries in Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 3, 11, and 7 evidence 15 through 17, Eul evidence 2 through 5, and Eul evidence 9, and the plaintiff alleged that the person who conducted real estate consulting business in the above lawsuit is the plaintiff himself and the land in this case was also the plaintiff's ownership. The real estate seller, EulBB, who was the real estate seller, stated that the plaintiff entered into a sales contract on the above land and received the purchase price from the plaintiff, and this E, who is the purchaser in the registry, and the highestCC, was aware of the plaintiff's wife and the head office, and sent agricultural products to the auditor so that the plaintiff can continue to cultivate the above land, and that the plaintiff's purchase of the above land under the name of the plaintiff 2 and the 20OO, which is hard to say that the plaintiff 20O purchase the above land under the name of the plaintiff 2, and that the plaintiff 200O purchase price under the title of this case and the receipts were made.

(3) Therefore, since the Plaintiff is deemed to have actually acquired and transferred the instant land, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the actual owner of the said land is E is without merit, and the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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