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 May 31, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired a parcel of land C, D, E, F, G54 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from Namyang-si, Nam-si (Death on October 30, 2002), and transferred it in accordance with the voluntary auction procedure on October 19, 201.

B. The Plaintiff calculated the acquisition value of the instant land as KRW 2,175,133,709 and reported the transfer income tax. However, on August 7, 2012, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 516,75,855 of the transfer income tax reverted to the year 2010 on the premise that the actual acquisition value of the instant land was KRW 1,210,00,000.

(3) Of the disposition imposing capital gains tax, the remaining portion of KRW 373,223,487 remaining after reduction or correction due to the change in acquisition value of real estate other than the instant land (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The plaintiff was under the procedure of the previous trial.

[Ground of Recognition] A. A. 1 to 3-2, 9-1 to 9-5, 1, 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s actual acquisition value of the instant real estate is KRW 2,080,00,000 or KRW 2,500,000,00, and thus, the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. The burden of proof on the tax base, which is the basis of taxation, is the tax authority in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the income tax disposition, and the tax base is the tax authority's burden of proof on revenue and necessary expenses, as the tax base deducts necessary

However, since necessary expenses are not only favorable to the taxpayer, but most of the facts causing 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 the burden of tax in consideration of the difficulty of proof or equity between the parties, it is consistent with the concept of fairness to recognize the necessity of proof to the taxpayer.

Supreme Court Decision 2006Du16137 Decided October 26, 2007