1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. The plaintiff’s new argument in the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the new argument in the court of first instance to the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(hereinafter the meaning of the abbreviationd language used in this context is the same as the judgment of the first instance). The second parallel 4 of the second parallel "the plaintiff" is "V representing the plaintiff," and the first two parallel "the plaintiff and the plaintiff" are "V representing the plaintiff," respectively.

The second sentence " July 22, 2009" shall be changed to " July 27, 2009".

Part 18 through 6 of the 5th page shall be as follows.

According to Articles 4(1)3, 88(1), and 94(1), etc. of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009), capital gains tax is imposed on income accruing from the transfer of land or a building. Here, the term "transfer" means that an asset is actually transferred for price by means of sale, exchange, investment in kind in a corporation, etc. regardless of the registration or enrollment of the asset. In this case, the term "real transfer for price" means that the price of the land was actually paid for price to the extent that the price of the land was almost paid by social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Nu286, Feb. 14, 1984; 8Nu8609, Jul. 11, 1989); and on the other hand, if the ownership of the land subject to transfer is registered as well as the ownership of the land, it should be deemed that the land was actually paid for price.