The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport.

The reason for the partial acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows: 4-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance: 11-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance; 2-2 of the judgment:

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from four to seven pages) shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from four to seven pages) is used as follows.

Judgment

Article 4(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same) provides that a resident’s income shall be classified into global income, retirement income, and transfer income, and the transfer income shall be “income accruing from the transfer of assets” (Article 4(1)3). Article 88(1) provides that “The term “transfer” means the actual transfer of assets for consideration by sale, exchange, investment in kind to a corporation, etc., regardless of the registration or enrollment of assets.”

Examining whether compensation, etc. was income accrued from the transfer of assets or the above fact of recognition in light of the relevant provisions, the Plaintiff’s compensation and the money received from the Sincheon-si for the instant land (hereinafter “compensation, etc.”) received from the Sincheon-si constitutes income accrued from the transfer of assets, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

(1) The main sentence of Article 88(1) of the former Income Tax Act provides that “transfer” means that an asset is actually transferred for price due to sale, exchange, investment in kind in a corporation, etc., regardless of the registration or enrollment of the asset, and the contract, such as sale and purchase, which is the cause of the asset transferred for price, is not required

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du23644 Decided July 21, 201). (2) The ownership of the instant land was finally reverted to an excessive city, and the Plaintiff.