1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following among the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked:

The defendant on 2016.

Details of the disposition

This part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act,

2. The legality of the instant disposition

A. The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) Article 97(1)2 of the Income Tax Act provides that “the amount of capital expenditure, etc.” shall be KRW 82,96,130, and KRW 21,577,410,00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was paid as improvement expenses after the acquisition of the instant land, constitutes “the amount of capital expenditure, etc.” and Article 97(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2607, Feb. 3, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 2687, Mar. 6, 20, 200).

B. The entry of the relevant statutes is as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Article 97(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that "one of the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value when calculating gains on transfer, such as "Article 97(2) and Article 97(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as transfer expenses," and Article 163(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act with respect to "the amount of capital expenditure, etc. prescribed by Presidential Decree" shall be governed by Article 67(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.