1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the instant case, is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except where the judgment of the court of first instance partially dismissed or deleted, and the plaintiff added the judgment of the allegations emphasized by the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

Paragraph 1 of Paragraph 1 shall be applied to "paragraph 3" in the fourth seven-party judgment of the first instance.

The fifth 4-14 (D) portion of the judgment of the first instance shall be raised as follows.

capital expenditure for the land means the expenses actually incurred in increasing the value of the land;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Du5502 Decided April 11, 2008). In addition, the burden of proof on the tax base, which is the basis of taxation, exists at the tax authority in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the transfer income tax disposition, and the tax base is deducted necessary expenses from the revenue, so the burden of proof on the revenue and necessary expenses, in principle,

However, since necessary expenses are not only favorable to the taxpayer, but most of the facts generating necessary expenses are located within the area under the control of the taxpayer, and the tax authority has difficulty in proving them. Thus, in a case where it is reasonable to have the taxpayer prove by taking into account the difficulty of proof or equity between the parties, it accords with the concept of fairness to recognize the necessity of proof for the taxpayer.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du1588, Sept. 23, 2004; 2006Du16137, Oct. 26, 2007). First, this paper examines KRW 17,00,00, which the Plaintiff claimed as a construction design cost.

The following facts and circumstances, i.e., the land of this case, based on the evidence Nos. 1, 27, and 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, which can be known by comprehensively taking into account the following facts and circumstances: