The disposal of the actual purchase price of the instant land as KRW 00 million is lawful.

Since the purchase price of the instant land shall be deemed to be KRW 00 million, the Defendant’s disposition of this case based on such premise is lawful.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

Suwon District Court 2014Guhap60048 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

NewO

OO Head of the tax office

November 24, 2015

December 22, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of OO, OO, or OO(including additional tax) of capital gains tax in 2007 against the Plaintiff on June 7, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 16, 2007, the Plaintiff sold 29,421 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) out of O-Myeon O-si O-si O7-2 forest 38,842 square meters (hereinafter referred to as 17-5 forest 30,075 square meters, such as 17-2 forest ri,767 square meters on February 27, 2008) in OO-si, O-si, O-si, and sold 29,421 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) in O-O00,000. On August 17, 2007, the Plaintiff sold 55-3 forest 26,083 square meters, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “the remaining land”).

B. On November 30, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) filed a preliminary return on capital gains tax to sell the instant land and remaining land to EOO and EO in total to KRW 00 million on September 19, 201; (b) the sales contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) that was submitted to the Defendant at that time is indicated as the date of the sales contract, as the date of May 16, 2007; (c) as the buyer’s “O and EOO”; and (d) the sales price as “O0 billion won.”

C. As a result of the on-site investigation of the capital gains tax, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff transferred the instant land and remaining land to EOO and EO (i.e., KRW 00 million in the purchase price of the instant land + KRW 00 million in the purchase price of the instant remaining land); and (b) imposed KRW OO,OO, andOO on the Plaintiff on April 17, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On September 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the said claim on August 12, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4 evidence, Eul 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the actual purchase price of the instant land was KRW 00 million, the Defendant’s disposition that imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff by deeming the purchase price of the instant land as KRW 00 million is unlawful.

B. Determination

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and the testimony of Lee Professor, Lee O and Lee 2 shall develop the instant land and the remaining land, and divide profits therefrom. The plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the instant land and the remaining land through the introduction of KimO and Gao, and the plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the instant land on May 16, 2007 with KimO and Lee 5, stating the purchaser of the instant land as "Gao, Lee O, and five other," the sales contract for the instant land, which entered the purchase price as "O0 million won," and these agreements were concluded between Lee 1 and Lee 200,000,000,0000 won, and these agreements were concluded between Lee O and Lee 2,000,0000,000 won, which were returned to the plaintiff, and the remaining O0,000,000 won were returned to the plaintiff.

According to the above facts, although the Plaintiff, EOO, and EOO entered into a sales contract with the purchase price of the instant land as KRW O00,000,000, the Plaintiff agreed to reduce the purchase price of the instant land from the amount of KRW 00,000,000,000, which was to be returned from EOO, paid by EO and EO to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant’s disposition based on the premise that the purchase price of the instant land is KRW 00,000 is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.