1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s transfer income tax attributed to the Plaintiff on April 6, 2015, 467,661.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The determination of the price of individual land, which serves as the basis for calculating the tax base in calculating the transfer income of the land at issue of this case, was based on the officially assessed land price determined on the basis of the previous land use status, although there was no reporting of commencement and commencement of construction for G land among the land at issue 2 at issue of this case as of July 1, 2004, and thus, it should be evaluated as land use status prior to the previous land use status. As such, the instant disposition was unlawful (hereinafter “the allegation 1”).

(2) Even if the land price determination is not illegal, the Plaintiff settled the purchase price for the instant land on June 16, 2003 and subsequently acquired the instant land and transferred it to J on December 28, 2004. As such, the Plaintiff owned the instant land for at least one year pursuant to Article 162(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18705, Feb. 19, 2005; hereinafter the same) and thus, the Plaintiff should be subject to the imposition of capital gains tax under the “standard market price” pursuant to the main text of Articles 114(4) and 96(1) of the former Income Tax Act. However, the Defendant issued a revised disposition by applying the “actual transaction price” as to the instant land 2, thereby unlawful.

(3) Even if the Defendant’s correction is lawful based on the actual transaction price, deeming the purchase price of KRW 940 million under the instant key contract lacking credibility as the transfer price based on the actual transaction price is unlawful. In addition, the Defendant’s disposal of this case is unlawful. 4) Furthermore, the actual transaction price, which verified the “acquisition value” that the Defendant deducted as necessary expenses for capital gains, is KRW 370 million, which is the actual transaction price verified.