1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 17, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired from C the Building Nos. 202 on the ground of the Jung-gu Seoul and 2 parcels (hereinafter “instant loan”). On January 7, 2005, it transferred on January 7, 2005.

B. On May 25, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the final return of capital gains tax base by making the transfer value of KRW 1,020,000,000, and the acquisition value of KRW 1,030,000.

C. The Defendant considered the transfer value of the instant loan as KRW 1,400,000,000, and the acquisition value as KRW 1,030,000,000, and determined and notified the transfer income tax of KRW 404,04,080 (including additional tax) for the year 2005 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On September 7, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 27, 2016. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 19, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in KRW 140,000,000, acquisition value of the loan of this case.

Even if such can not be seen, since the actual transaction price of the loan of this case cannot be known, the acquisition price of the loan of this case should be calculated by the conversion price.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.

B. In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 3 and the entire pleadings, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor’s seal of approval written between the Plaintiff and C can be acknowledged that the purchase price is KRW 1,030,000,000.

However, barring special circumstances, the Claimant must prove that the stamp contract prepared by the parties to the transaction and approved by the head of the Si/Gun, etc. is prepared in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, and that the contract was prepared differently from the actual ones.

(Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2353 delivered on April 9, 1993). Each of subparagraphs 4 through 7 of this case’s sales contract is a separate entry.