In the event that land and apartment are exchanged, whether the transfer value of the land is legitimate in the tax disposition in view of the apartment sale price.

In the case of exchanging land and apartment, there is no evidence to prove that the value of the transfer of the land is lower than that of the apartment at the time of the exchange contract, and thus, it is legitimate in consequence, there is no evidence to prove that

Article 14 (Calculation of Tax Base)

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 1, 2002, the Plaintiff has been running real estate sales business after having registered its business with the trade name of '○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.'

B. In 200, the Plaintiff transferred 4 lots, including the transfer of 4 lots of land, such as ○○○○○○ ○○○○, ○○○-gun’s land, etc. by five years until 2004. Of these, the Plaintiff did not file a global income tax on the portion of transfer in 200 and 2001. Of these, for the portion of transfer in 202 and 2003, the global income tax was assessed as zero, and for the portion of transfer in 2004, the global income tax was assessed as KRW 372,00.

C. Around August 2005, the Defendant: (a) conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff; (b) deemed the amount of income from 2000 and the amount of income from 2000 to 2004 by real estate sales business; and (c) determined or notified the amount of income from 2000 to 2004 as global income tax for 18,506,000 global income tax for 200, global income tax for 6,115,000 global income tax for 201, global income tax for 2002, global income tax for 1,564,000,290,000 global income tax for 203 and global income tax for 20374,242,000 global income tax for 204 as global income tax for 204 (hereinafter “each taxation disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. On the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2000

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

From among the land transferred by the Plaintiff in 200, the Plaintiff purchased 1/2 shares in the name of each of its own wife around 1997 with the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○36 square meters of forest land in ○○○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○○, among the land transferred in 2000. The Plaintiff sold the above 1/2 shares to ○○○, around 200, at around 30,000. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above 1/2 shares transfer value was confirmed to have 15,00,000 won, the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s sale price in 2 shares as KRW 77,50,000,000, and the Plaintiff’s sale price in 200, not the above 700,000 shares transfer price between the Plaintiff and the above ○○○.

(2) Determination

As to the fact that the Plaintiff sold 1/2 shares in the above land to ○○○○ in KRW 30,000,000, it is difficult to believe that the entry of Gap evidence No. 3 is written, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, and there is no evidence to prove that the market price of the above apartment bonds was lower than that of the above apartment bonds at the time of the above exchange contract, the above assertion by the Plaintiff is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of profit distribution among the disposition imposing global income tax for the tax years 2003 and 2004

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(A) From among the land that the Plaintiff transferred to 203, ① ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 50%, the Plaintiff acquired KRW 47,00,00 in the name of the Plaintiff, but transferred KRW 115,00,000 after transferring KRW 162,00,000 in the name of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff divided KRW 62,00,000, KRW 26,50,000 in each of the above 00, KRW 700, KRW 200, KRW 16,000 on each of the above 0, KRW 200, KRW 33,816,000 on each of the above 0,000 on the part of the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW.

(B) Among the land that the Plaintiff transferred to 204, ① ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ and Ri○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”) calculated 1/3 and acquired 30,000 won after transferring KRW 62,00,000 to KRW 10,670,000. 2) The Plaintiff’s land ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 20,65,60, 700, 126,000, 206, 100, 700, 100, 100, 700, 100, 700.

(2) Determination

As shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion above, each testimony of Gap’s evidence Nos. 4-1 through 9 and witness ○○○, Park○, ○○○, Lee ○○, Lee Jong-○, Lee Jong-○, and Lee Il-○, each of the following circumstances shown in the argument of this case. In other words, it is difficult to understand that both the plaintiff and the above investors have traded only cash or check, even though the amount of investment funds and profits alleged to have been given and received by each of the above investors is a little amount of less than KRW 10 million, and not more than KRW 40 million, it is difficult to understand that they have traded only in cash or check, and even the amount claimed to have been traded in a check, it is difficult to submit any financial data. Thus, there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion. Thus, all of the above allegations of

C. Regarding the assertion of necessary expenses

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

In transferring land over several occasions from 2002 to 2004, the Plaintiff spent KRW 5,500,000 as expenses for permission for mountainous district conversion in 2002, KRW 3,500,00 as grave removal equipment in 2003, KRW 2,700,00 as expenses for changing the form and quality, and KRW 11,50,000 as grave removal equipment in 204. In calculating the comprehensive income tax in 202 to 2004, the above expenses should be deducted as necessary expenses.

(2) Determination

As seen above, each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 8 (including the number of pages) revealed by the plaintiff as to the payment of expenses as above is written by the defendant. In light of the fact that the plaintiff was not submitted when a tax investigation was conducted by the defendant or when the plaintiff filed a request for a review with respect to each tax disposition of this case, it is difficult to believe it and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise

3. Conclusion

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