The burden of proving the rationality and validity of the estimation is on the tax authorities.

If a supplementary investigation is not conducted on confirmation of facts, etc., a statement made by a person who is not a taxpayer in the course of investigation by the tax authority is merely a unilateral statement and it cannot be deemed as taxation data for the taxpayer unless there are any special circumstances.

2012Gu 1711 Decision of revocation of capital gains tax

xAA

Daejeon director of the tax office

June 20, 2014

September 19, 2014

1. On December 1, 2010, the Defendant’s imposition of transfer income tax (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on December 1, 2003, exceeding KRW OOO in excess of KRW 200, and the imposition of transfer income tax for the year 2004 exceeding KRW OO in excess of KRW 20, respectively.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-fourth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of transfer income tax (including additional tax) for the year 2003 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2010, and revocation of the imposition of transfer income tax (including additional tax) for the year 2004 by the Plaintiff, and the imposition of transfer income tax (including additional tax) for the year 2004 by the Plaintiff respectively (as of February 24, 2011, the date of notice of the results of the tax investigation (Evidence A 3) giving advance notice of the correction of reduction, the first imposition disposition shall be made on December 1, 2010).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff entered into a contract for commercial building supply (hereinafter referred to as the "sale contract of this case") on May 17, 2003 with BB construction industry corporation (the name was changed to BB construction; hereinafter referred to as the "company of this case"). The plaintiff entered into the sales contract of this case with O2 district O2 district O0 complex 3 complex O0 complex O0 complex hereinafter (hereinafter referred to as the "commercial building of this case") and paid O00 won in total of the down payment. The plaintiff was the purchaser of this case's sales contract of this case with 201 unit 1 unit 203 unit m203 unit 20 unit m2 unit 1/2 unit 102 unit m2 unit 1 unit 1 unit 1 unit 205 unit m2 unit 1 unit 100 unit m2 unit m2 unit 1 unit 1 unit 100 unit m2 unit 1 unit 100 unit m2 unit 106 unit m.

C. On December 1, 2010, the Defendant imposed a disposition of imposition of transfer income tax (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff for the transfer of the right to sell commercial buildings (including additional tax) for the transfer value of 101 to 106, and 202 on the Plaintiff for the transfer of the right to sell commercial buildings (transfer value of OOO, acquisition value OOOO, transfer margin OOOO, transfer margin OOOO) on the transfer of the right to sell commercial buildings (including additional tax) for the transfer of the right to sell commercial buildings (including transfer value OO, acquisition value OOO, transfer margin 201, and 203), respectively.

D. On January 19, 201, the director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office, upon the Plaintiff’s filing of objection, determined that the applicant’s assertion was reasonable, since he/she did not have credibility in his/her statement of the broker CC and the resale DaD, etc. regarding the transfer income tax in 2003 and 2004, the disposition agency rendered a decision to additionally re-examine the facts about the premium that the claimant transferred and realized the right to sell the issue and determine the tax base and tax amount of the transfer income tax.

E. The Defendant, through a reinvestigation, recognized the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax paid to EE as the necessary expenses. On February 25, 2011, after deducting the amount of transfer proceeds of the commercial building sale right returned from the transfer margin, the Defendant adjusted the amount of transfer income tax for the year 2004 to the OOO (including additional tax), the acquisition value of the transfer value OO, the necessary OOOO, the necessary expenses OOO, the transfer income tax for the year 204 to the buyer of the transfer value (including additional tax), and the amount of transfer income tax for the year 204 to the OOO (the acquisition value, the OOOO, the necessary expensesOOO, and the transfer income tax for the OOOO) by reducing the amount of transfer proceeds to the 1000 won (the disposition of this case by the OOO on December 1, 201, the Plaintiff paid the transfer income tax for the year 201.

G. On July 27, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant disposition would be maintained as it is.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry into the facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5, 12, 23 evidence, Eul 1 through 4, 14, 23 evidence (including each number, respectively, for evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 23) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On April 14, 2003, the Plaintiff would make the commercial buildings to be sold in advance by ECC (the FF spouse of the nominal owner of the transfer registration of commercial building ownership No. 106).On payment of down payment, the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract with the recommendation to obtain the profits from resale of the amount equivalent to the purchase price by resale of the right to sell within one month. The Plaintiff paid down payment to the instant company the down payment OOO of the down payment and paid the down payment to E of the sales manager of the instant company.

The Plaintiff did not re-sale the instant sales contract even after one month has passed since the instant sales contract was concluded, and rather, the Plaintiff would return the sales right to the instant commercial building and receive the down payment from the Plaintiff around May 2003, 200. However, the Plaintiff agreed to re-sale the right under the instant sales contract and return the down payment to the Plaintiff, as it is difficult for thisCC to transfer the right under the instant sales contract and return the expenses incurred in the Plaintiff’s expenses and pay the remainder payment. The subsequent sales contract was terminated. The Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the buyer as a sales office upon contact with the instantCC, and only received the principal of the original sales contract and the amount equivalent to the interest accrued therefrom from the instantCC.

The Plaintiff only returned the amount equivalent to the down payment and the fee, but not the subject of the transfer margin claimed by the Defendant, but also acquired gains from transfer.CC, due to a separate monetary transaction relationship, has rendered a tax evasion report to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant was exempted from the obligation to pay transfer income tax and accepted only the statement of the intermediary intermediary to whom the Plaintiff intended to transfer income tax, and made the instant disposition. The instant disposition is an unlawful and unfair disposition in violation of Article 16 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 1945 of the National Tax Directive No. 1945, Article 32(1) of the National Tax Service Directive.

In addition, General Rule 80-0, 1, and 1 of the Income Tax Act provides that if the original decision or correction was made through a field investigation, it cannot be corrected or re-revision by estimation method thereafter. The method of a field investigation and estimation differs from the method of taxation, and thus, it cannot be made simply by correction because it is a disposition that is entirely new. If the defendant wants to change the method of taxation, it is necessary to cancel the disposition of this case by the method of a field investigation and make a re-determination by estimation, such as business example, etc. Therefore, it cannot be made only by the method of correction without maintaining the disposition of this case, and there is no business example that is objectively recognized as a normal transaction in this case.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The details of the calculation of gains on transfer by the number of units of the commercial building of this case and the transferee are as shown in the attached Table 2. The transfer margin and the transferee (However, the actual acquisition value of the commercial building No. 201 is an OO won).

From June 1, 2003 to June 25, 2004, which is the trading period, the Plaintiff’s funds deposited into the Plaintiff’s account is an OOO personnel; the purchase price which the transferee stated that the transferee paid to the Plaintiff constitutes an OOO; the related person’s statement is specific and realistic; the OOO district is designated as an speculative area around May 2003; the contents of the instant sales contract are set at 40% different from the general sales contract; and the interval between the down payment date and the intermediate payment date is short; the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the Plaintiff, in light of the following: (a) the sales contract was sold in cash at an early stage; and (b) the Plaintiff, other than the sales contract, bears the burden of proving that the sales contract was sold in cash; and (c) the Plaintiff, other than the Plaintiff, bears the burden of proving that the sales contract was sold in cash, at the time of early payment to the selling company.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

(c) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(d) Facts of recognition;

(3) The delivery date of the sales contract of this case is 3.0 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 3 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20 O. 20

3) On May 17, 2003, the instant company issued the down payment 102 receipt to the Plaintiff, and then changed the name of the contractor from the outer A to the regular GG, and from the regularGG to the Park H and the lowest II. On May 30, 2003, the instant company issued the intermediate payment 102 receipt to the Plaintiff, and then revised the name of the contractor from the regularG H and the lowest II receipts from the 202 commercial buildings to the 200 OJ 20 OJ 20 OJ 20 OJ 20 20 OJ 2, 203 20 OJ 2, 203 20 OJ 2, 202 OJ 2, 30 OJ 2, 30 OJ 2, 203 respectively, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

4) ① 101호 상가의 소유권이전등기 명의자 이RR과 이 사건 회사 사이에 체결된 2006. 3. 15.자 상가공급계약서에는 재산의 표시가 101호, 분양면적 47.26㎡ 로, 공급대금이 계약금 OOOO원, 1회, 2회 중도금 및 잔금 각 OOOO원, 합계 OOOO원 (105호 분양계약서 대금의 1/2과 같다)으로, ② 102호 상가의 소유권이전등기 명의자 신KK와 이 사건 회사 사이에 체결된 2003. 10. 14.자 상가공급계약서(2006. 5. 8. 유성구청장 검인)에는 재산의 표시가 102호, 분양면적 47.26㎡ 로, 공급대금이 계약금 OOOO원, 1회, 2회 중도금 및 잔금 각 OOOO원, 합계 OOOO원 (105호 분양계약서 대금의 1/2과 같다)으로, ③ 103호 상가의 소유권이전등기 명의자 서LL, 서MM, 서NN과 이 사건 회사 사이에 체결된 2006. 2. 27.자 상가공급계약서에는 재산의 표시가 103호, 분양면적 47.26㎡ 로, 공급대금이 계약금 OOOO원, 1회, 2회 중도금 및 잔금 각 OOOO원, 합계 OOOO원 으로, ④ 104호 상가의 소유권이전등기 명의자 김PP와 이 사건 회사 사이에 체결된 2003. 6. 5.자 상가공급계약서에는 재산의 표시가 103호, 분양면적 47.26㎡ 에서 104호, 분양 면적 47.26㎡ 로 수정 기재 날인되었고, 공급대금이 계약금 OOOO원, 1회, 2회 중 도금, 잔금 각 OOOO원, 합계 OOOO원 으로, ⑤ 106호 상가의 소유권이전등 기 명의자 유FF과 이 사건 회사 사이에 체결된 2006. 3. 14.자 상가공급계약서에는 재산의 표시가 106호, 분양면적 48.105㎡ 로, 공급대금이 계약금 OOOO원, 1회, 2회 중도금 및 잔금 각 OOOO원, 합계 OOOO원 (101호 내지 104호 상가의 각 대금과 같다)으로, ⑥ 201호 상가 소유권이전등기 명의자 박QQ과 이 사건 회사 사이에 체결된 2006. 1. 25.자 상가공급계약서(2006. 3. 24. 유성구청장 검인)에는 재산의 표시가 201호 분양면적 111.76㎡ (203호 상가의 분양면적과 같다)에서 201호 분양면적 109.79㎡ 로 수정 기재 날인되었고, 공급대금이 계약금 OOOO원, 1회, 2회 중도금 및 잔금 각 OOOO원, 합계 OOOO원 (203호 상가의 대금과 같다)으로, ⑦ 202호 상가 소유권이전등기 명의자 오VV과 이 사건 회사 사이에 체결된 2006. 4. 5.자 상가공급계약서에는 재산의 표시가 202호, 분양면적 85.71㎡ 로, 공급대금이 계약금 OOOO원, 1회, 2회 중도금 및 잔금 각 OOOO원, 합계 OOOO원 으로, ⑧ 203호 상가 소유권이전등기 명의자 이JJ와 이 사건 회사 사이에 체결된 2004. 6. 25.자 상가공급계약서에는 재산의 표시가 203호, 분양면적 109.79㎡ 로, 공급대금이 계약금 OOOO원, 1회, 2회 중도금 및 잔금 각 OOOO원, 합계 OOOO원 (201호 상가의 분양면적 및 대금과 같다)으로 각 기재되었다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul 4 to 6, 23 evidence (including each number), and the purport of the whole of each entry of Eul 31-2 to 10

E. Determination

1) Acquisition value of the sales right of the commercial building of this case

The sales contract of this case, according to the tax invoice and receipt issued by the company of this case, the acquisition value of the sales right of this case acquired by the plaintiff is as shown in attached Form 4. Acquisition value.

2) The transferee of the sales right of the instant commercial building

A) A 1st floor commercial building;

① 을 10호증의 1의 일부 기재, 증인 조DD의 일부 증언 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의 하면 조DD가 원고로부터 이 사건 상가 1층 중 101 내지 103호 3개의 분양권을 매입 하였는데, 그중 101호, 102호는 분양권 취득 당시 구분되지 않은 상태에 있었다는 것인바, 구분되지 않은 101, 102호는 105호 상가, 106호 상가로 구분되기 이전의 105호 분양계약서 목적물로 보이고, 103호는 101, 102호에 연달아 있어 104호 상가로 보이는 점, ② 101호 상가 소유권이전등기 명의자 이RR과 102호 상가 소유권이전등기 명의자 신KK가 각각 이 사건 회사와 체결한 상가공급계약서에는 105호 분양계약서 대금의 1/2과 같은 금액이 기재된 점, ③ 102호 상가에 대한 2003. 5. 17.자 계약금 영수증의 계약자 명의가 원고에서 정GG로 바뀌었고, 2003. 5. 30.자 1회 중도금 영수증의 계약자 명의가 정GG에서 제3자로 바뀌었으며, 102호 분양계약서상 수납확인된 납입내역에는 계약금 OOOO원밖에 존재하지 않으므로 피고 주장과 같이 정GG가 105호 상가의 분양권을 취득한 것으로 볼 수 없고, 영수증 문언 그대로 102호 상가의 분양권을 취득한 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 104호 상가 소유권이전등기 명의자 김PP가 이 사건 회사와 체결한 상가공급계약서에는 당초 103호가 기재되어 있었던 점, ⑤ 을 20호증의 1 내지 3의 각 기재에 의하면 조DD는 104호, 전용면적 38.22㎡, 잔금 지불시 회사 2차 잔금 OOOO원을 공제, 매수인 이SS 이라 기재된 2003. 7. 7.자 전매계약서, 1층 105호, 면적 14.55평, 매매대금에서 매수인이 회사에 납부할 금액 OOOO원을 제외함, 매수인 신KK 라 기재한 2003. 8. 14.자 전매계약서(조DD의 장인 오TT 명의로 작성되었다), 101호, 면적 47.26㎡, 회사잔금 OOOO원, 매수인 이RR 이라 기재된 2004. 7. 1.자 전매계약서를 각각 체결하였는데 2003. 8. 14.자 전매계약서의 1층 05호 면적 14.55평은 48.099㎡로 105호, 106호 상가의 각 분양면적 48.105㎡와 거의 일치하고, 그 매수인은 신KK이며, 2004. 7. 1.자 전매계약서의 회사잔금 OOOO원은 105호, 106호 상가의 각 잔금 OOOO원과 일치하고, 그 매수인은 이RR이며, 갑 2호증의 기재에 의하면 103호 상가 소유권이전등기 명의자인 서LL가 조DD로부터 상가 분양권을 매입한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 조DD가 처분한 2003. 7. 7.자 전매계약서에 104호가 기재된 점(매수인 이SS 명의는 차용된 것으로 보인다), ⑥ 103호 상가 해약에 대한 세금계산서 작성일자와 동일하게 김PP와 이 사건 회사 사이에 상가공급계약서가 작성되었고, 105호 분양계약서 해약에 대한 세금계산서 작성일자와 동일하게 신KK와 이 사건 회사 사이에 상가공급계약서가 작성된 점, ⑦ 106호 상가 소유권이전등기 명의자 유FF이 이 사건 회사와 체결한 상가공급계약서에는 101호 내지 104호 상가의 대금과 같은 금액이 기재된 점 등에 비추어 보면 원고는 이 사건 분양계약에 따라 취득한 101호 상가 분양권을 유FF에게, 102호 상가 분양권을 정GG에게, 103호 상가 분양권을 김PP에게, 104 내지 106호 상가 분양권을 조DD에게 각각 양도하였고, 1층 105호 로 기재되어 조DD와 신KK 사이에 체결된 전매계약서의 작성일자인 2003. 8. 14. 이후 소유권이전등기 이전까지 사이에 101호 상가부터 106호 상가까지의 상가공급계약은 차례대로 분양대금은 101호 분양계약서부터 106호 분양계약서까지와 마찬가지인 채로 목적물만 106호 상가부터 101호 상가까지로 변경된 것으로 보인다.

B) 2nd floor shopping mall;

① 201호 상가 소유권이전등기 명의자 박QQ과 이 사건 회사 사이에 체결된 상가공급계약서에는 당초 203호 상가의 분양면적이 기재되어 있었고, 공급대금은 203호 상가의 대금과 같은 금액이 기재된 점, ② 을 31호증의 8의 일부 기재에 의하면 원고와 김UU 사이에 2004. 5.경 작성된 부동산임대차계약서에는 부동산의 표시가 201호, 111.76㎡의 1/2 이라 기재되어 있고 특약사항의 임대인은 매매로 인하여 명의변경 옆에 박QQ 이라고 기재되어 있는데, 111.76㎡는 203호 상가의 분양면적과 같은 점, ③ 203호 상가 소유권이전등기 명의자 이JJ와 이 사건 회사 사이에 체결된 상가공급계약서에 기재된 분양면적 및 공급대금이 201호 상가의 그것과 같은 점, ④ 이 사건 회사가 당초 201호 로 기재하여 원고에게 발행한 영수증에는 201호 상가의 계약금, 1회 중도금과 같은 금액이 기재되어 있었고, 201호 가 203호 로, 계약자 명의가 곽AA 에서 이JJ 로 수정 날인되었음에도 금액은 수정되지 아니한 점 등을 종합하면 원고는 이 사건 분양계약에 따라 취득한 201호 상가 분양권을 이JJ에게, 202호 상가분양권을 오VV에게, 203호 상가 분양권을 박QQ에게 각각 양도하였고, 소유권이전등기 이전까지 201호 상가부터 203호 상가까지의 상가공급계약은 차례대로 분양대금은 201호 분양계약서부터 203호 분양계약서까지와 마찬가지인 채로 목적물만 203호 상가부터 201호 상가까지로 변경된 것으로 보인다.

3) The transfer value of the shopping mall sales right

A) Right to sell 102 commercial buildings

According to Gap evidence 15, 16, and Eul evidence 9-2 through 4, each of these statements is 200,000 won and 20,000,000 won for 20,000 won for 26,000,000 won for 200,000 won for 30,000,000 won for 20,0000 won for 30,000,0000 won for 20,0000,0000 won for 20,0000,000 won for 20,0000,000 won for 20,0000,000 won for 20,0000,000 won for 3,000,0000,000 won for 20,0000,000 won for 3,000,000,000 won for 3,000,000.

B) Right to sell commercial buildings 201

According to the evidence No. 7 and No. 25 and No. 26, thisJ deposited the KRW OO on June 21, 2004 with the Plaintiff’s account. On June 25, 2004, the fact that the OOOOO was deposited with the Plaintiff’s account on June 25, 2004. The fact that the contract for the supply of commercial buildings was made between the JJ and the instant company on June 25, 2004 is as mentioned above (i.e., the tax invoice for the cancellation of the 203 commercial buildings is the KRW 201, 201, 203, 2000, 201, 203, 201, 203, 201, 203, 201, 203, 201, 203, 201, 200, 201, 203, 201, respectively.

C) The sales right of the remaining commercial buildings

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition imposing tax, the burden of proof on the person liable for tax payment shall be the person liable for taxation. On the other hand, a statement made by a person other than a person liable for tax payment prepared in the course of investigation by an investigative agency or a tax authority is merely a statement made by the person other than the person liable for tax payment, unless there is evidentiary evidence that conforms to the statement or there is no complementary investigation such as confirmation of facts about the person liable for tax payment, and barring any other special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du5022, Jul. 9

Among the commercial buildings of this case, each of the statements in Eul evidence 10-1 to 3, Eul evidence 11-2, Eul evidence 16, Eul evidence 17-1 to 3, Eul evidence 29, 30-1 to 31-10, evidence 29, and evidence 31-1 to 10, each of the statements in Eul evidence 29, 30-1 to 31-10, evidence 10, evidence 1, evidence 29, and evidence 31-1 to 31-10, and evidence 10 are merely the statements of unilateral statement without evidentiary evidence of the purchaser of the right to sell or the defendant's assertion that conflict with the interests of the plaintiff in relation to the transfer income tax, or there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

4) Plaintiff’s capital gains tax amount

The transfer value of the right to sell a commercial building No. 102 shall be KRW OO, the acquisition value shall be KRW OOO, the necessary expenses shall be KRW OOO [x (102 acquisition value of the right to sell a commercial building ± OOO) x (102 acquisition value of the right to sell a commercial building ± total acquisition value of the right to sell the commercial building of this case ± less than KRW OO) , the transfer margin shall be KRW OO (=OO - OOwon - OOO). The transfer value of the right to sell a commercial building of this case 201 is KRW OO, the acquisition value shall be KRW OO, the necessary expenses shall be KRW OO, the acquisition value of the right to sell the commercial building of this case x OO (201 acquisition value of the right to sell the commercial building of this case ± the total acquisition value of the right to sell the commercial building of this case ± OO20) -O20) -O won

The amount of capital gains tax included in the Plaintiff’s additional tax calculated on this basis is as shown in the attached Form 5. (According to the facts recognized above, the Plaintiff transferred the sales right of the instant commercial building and the income accrued to the Plaintiff, and the sales contract of the instant commercial building was terminated or the capital gains did not accrue to the Plaintiff).

5) Whether the decision was based on estimation

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a taxation disposition, the determination of illegality should be made by whether the tax amount recognized by the said taxation disposition exceeds the legitimate tax amount (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du204, Jun. 15, 2006). As such, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a taxation disposition of capital gains tax based on the actual transfer value, the tax authority may assert that the tax amount imposed does not exceed the legitimate tax amount by the estimation decision. Provided, That the burden of proof for reasonableness and validity of the estimation decision is against the tax authority (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu967, Sept. 9, 196).

살피건대, 피고는 105호 상가 분양권의 양도가액을 매매사례가액으로 하여 이 사건 상가 전부의 양도가액을 추계결정해야 한다고 주장하나 105호 상가 분양권은 실지 양도가액을 인정할 수 없고, 실지 양도가액이 인정되는 102호 상가 분양권, 201호 상가 분양권에 관하여 보더라도, 102호 상가 분양권은 계약금만 지급한 상태에서 양도한 것으로 1회 중도금 이후까지 대금을 지급한 나머지 상가 분양권과 차이가 있는 점, 201호 상가는 2층에 위치하여 1층 상가와 동일성 또는 유사성이 있다고 할 수 없고, 그 분양권은 2회 중도금까지 지급한 상태에서 양도한 것으로 1회 중도금까지 지급한 202 호 상가 분양권과 차이가 있으며, 구 소득세법 시행령(2005. 2. 19. 대통령령 제18705 호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제176조의2 제3항 제1호는 양도일 또는 그 취득일 전후 각 3월 이내에 당해 자산(주권상장법인 또는 협회등록법인의 주식 등을 제외한다)과 동일성 또는 유사성이 있는 자산의 매매사례가 있는 경우 그 가액 이라 규정하고 있는바, 201호 상가 분양권의 양도일이 203호 상가 분양권의 양도일 전후 각 3월 이내라고 인정할 증거가 없는 점(을 15. 16호증의 각 기재에 의하면 2010. 10. 21.자 문답서에서 박QQ은 우체국에서 퇴직금을 중간 정산한 OOOO원을 찾아 원고에게 지급하였고, 이 사건 회사에 별도로 분양대금을 지급한 것이 없다 는 내용으로 진술하였고, 박QQ의 계좌내역상 2004. 8. 31. 분할해지를 이유로 OOOO원 및 OOOO원이 지급된 사실을 인정할 수 있으나 2004. 8. 31.은 이 사건 상가의 잔금 지급일인 2005. 7. 30. 이전 시점으로 위 박QQ의 진술은 믿기 어렵다)에 비추어 위 주장은 이유 없다.

6) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax for the year 2003 (including additional tax) is an OOO, the transfer income tax for the year 2004 (including additional tax) is an OOO, and the instant disposition is lawful within this scope, and is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.