1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On July 5, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired 1,509 square meters (in September 11, 2002, 2002, 235 square meters in size was divided into E, but hereinafter “instant land”). The instant land was expropriated in the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on June 26, 2014.

On June 25, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a transfer income tax with the Defendant at KRW 376,390,000 with the acquisition value of the instant land as KRW 376,390,00. However, the Defendant deemed that the actual acquisition value of the instant land cannot be confirmed, and deemed that the acquisition value cannot be confirmed, the acquisition value of KRW 102,643,312, which was based on the conversion value, shall be deemed the acquisition value, and on January 4, 2016, the Plaintiff corrected the Plaintiff’s KRW 45,230,410 and the special rural development tax for rural development for the year

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service on April 1, 2016, but was dismissed on July 21, 2016.

【The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition and disposition of this case as to the facts without any dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 (including Serial Nos. 1) and the purport of the entire pleadings, was purchased at KRW 820,00,00. The actual acquisition price of the instant land is KRW 374,248,00.

Judgment

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

However, since the necessary expenses are only favorable to the taxpayer, and most of the facts causing necessary expenses are located in the area under the control of the taxpayer, and thus the tax authority is difficult to prove. Therefore, the taxpayer is obliged to pay taxes in consideration of the difficulty of proof or equity between the parties.