Plaintiff (Attorney Park Sung-sung et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The director of the tax office

October 6, 2010

1. The defendant against the plaintiff:

(a) August 6, 2001

(i) the portion exceeding KRW 463,665,212 of the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 465,243,027 for the year 201;

portion of the disposition of global income tax of 2,372,125,910 won in the disposition of global income tax of 2,619,267,413;

Article 701,394,795 won in the disposition of global income tax for the year 2004;

x) the imposition of global income tax of 2005 KRW 101,034,115; and

(b) a disposition of imposition of 11,299,864 of global income tax for the year 2002, Dec. 18, 2007;

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 7/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

an order 1. A.m. paragraphs 1 and 2.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 465,243,027 on August 6, 2001, exceeding KRW 309,404,020, among the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 2,619,267,413, exceeds KRW 2,32,648,413, among the disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 2,619,267,413, and the disposition of imposition of KRW 1,264,070,984, for the year 2004, shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 1, 2001, the Plaintiff: (a) was engaged in real estate sales business in the name of “Seoul Metropolitan City” from around 1, 2001 to 2005; (b) acquired real estate from a majority of Gwangju Metropolitan City and Seonam Metropolitan City from around 2001 to 2005; (c) divided and sold the real estate; and (d) paid the Defendant the comprehensive income tax accordingly.

B. From August 3, 2005 to June 5, 2006, the Central Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, and discovered and notified the Defendant of the violation. Based on this, the Defendant identified the Plaintiff’s total income amount and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification on August 1, 2006 (not including interest paid on real estate purchase funds, etc. in the necessary expenses) and on August 1, 2006, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the amount indicated in the Table 1>

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant issued a request for review on October 30, 2006 on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff did not include interest expenses, etc. incurred in relation to the above correction and notification in necessary expenses; (b) the Plaintiff’s request for review was partially accepted on December 18, 2007 as to the Plaintiff’s interest expenses; (c) 123,701,386 won (51,03,422 won reverted to year 202, 2003, 27,542, 2083 won reverted to year 203, 45,125,81 won reverted to year 204, 204, and 45,881 won in addition to necessary expenses; and (d) the Defendant made a decision to dismiss the remainder of the request after the correction and notification in sequence from 201 to 205, including the amount of income accruing from real estate not from the title truster.

The first notice (won) in the taxable year included in the main text of the Table 23: 465,243,027 - 465,243,243,027 - 202 14,149,817 26,480,805 ( May 1, 2007) 29,29,8642032,636,636,788 203,636,781, 29, 207, 204, 205, 207, 2064, 2036, 294, 207, 207, 781, 2936, 294, 207, 207, 206, 294, 207, 298, 1636, 294, 20637, 2965

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 9, 10, 26 evidence, Eul evidence 1, 2, 9 through 15, 22 through 27 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Claim on expenses for interest

The Plaintiff, a real estate sales businessman, has disbursed the total of KRW 1,10,980,00 paid in 201, KRW 149,44,000 paid in 202, and KRW 444,03,00 paid in 203, and KRW 515,521,000 paid in 204, and KRW 1,110,980,000 paid in 204, as interest expenses for the loan used for the acquisition and development of land for the sale of real estate, and such amount shall be included in necessary expenses.

(b) Claim on the steel tower construction cost;

(1) The Plaintiff, while running a golf driving range business on each of the lands in Song-dong, Gwangju-si, Busan-si (number 1 omitted), Busan (number 22 omitted), and Busan (number 23 omitted), sold part of each land to Nonparty 1, etc. for KRW 3,400,000,000, and related costs of civil and steel tower construction and steel tower construction should be included in necessary expenses.

Shelled, if it is impossible to confirm the cost of civil engineering and steel tower construction that actually occurred, the amount of income shall be calculated based on the estimation decision. Under the proviso to Article 143(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the amount of income shall be calculated based on the standard expense rate of 1,206,224,00 won [2,538,000 won - 946,000,000 won - (2,538,000,000 x 15.2%) or the amount of income calculated according to the simple expense rate of 395,928,000 won [2,538,000,000 won - (2,538,000,0000 x simple expense rate of 89.6% x 5%) calculated based on the amount of income calculated according to the simple expense rate of 39,50,205,2097, 2009, 2007 won]

C. The assertion on the denial of title trust

On June 20, 202, Nonparty 11, 9, and 10, who is the Plaintiff’s wife, purchased from Nonparty 14, and 15 the forest land of KRW 22,925 square meters in Song-dong, Gwangju-dong, Gwangju-si, for KRW 1,386,00,00, and divided into KRW 1,386,000, Nonparty 11 (land number 23 omitted), Nonparty 9 (land number 22 omitted), Nonparty 10 (land number 9,917 square meters), Nonparty 10 (land number 22 omitted), Nonparty 9,917 square meters in the Plaintiff’s name of KRW 9,917 square meters in the name of 0,00,000, KRW 16,000 in the name of Nonparty 9 (land number 13 omitted), and the Defendant additionally omitted the forest land number of KRW 15,456,000 in the name of 16,00.

Meanwhile, the name of Nonparty 9 was registered in the name of Nonparty 9, and the name of Nonparty 2,734 square meters and Nonparty 10 in Song-dong, Song-dong (number 22 omitted) in which the registration of transfer was completed under the Plaintiff’s name. When the Plaintiff sold the same to Nonparty 17 and 18 on August 10, 2004, the above real estate was deemed to have been owned from the beginning to the Plaintiff, and the acquisition value was deemed to have been the acquisition value of Nonparty 9 and 10 at the time of calculating the transfer income tax (the Plaintiff reported the acquisition value to the Plaintiff as the purchase price purchased from Nonparty 9 and 10) by deeming that the said real estate was owned by Nonparty 9 and 10 at the time of calculating the global income amount of the Plaintiff in 204, the difference between the acquisition value reported by the Plaintiff to Nonparty 9 and the acquisition value of Nonparty 10 and the acquisition value of Nonparty 51,163,000.

In addition, on March 24, 2004, when the transfer registration was completed under the name of the Plaintiff on the part of March 24, 2004, the Defendant sold 3,969 square meters of forest land (number 17 omitted) to Nonparty 19 on December 30, 2005, on the ground that the said real estate was owned by Nonparty 10, the Defendant deemed that the said real estate was owned by the Plaintiff from the beginning of the year, and deemed the acquisition value as KRW 248,528,000, which is the value acquired in the name of Nonparty 10 at the time of calculating the transfer income tax (the Plaintiff reported the acquisition value as KRW 956,841,000, the Plaintiff reported the acquisition value as KRW 591,472,000, which was purchased by the Plaintiff from Nonparty 10 to the global income

However, since the plaintiff is not a title truster of each of the above real estate, the income amount corresponding to the plaintiff's global income shall not be included in or deducted from acquisition value.

(d) Claim for acquisition value of real transactions;

On August 5, 2000, the Plaintiff acquired 1/2 of the shares from Nonparty 20 on September 15, 2001, and thereafter transferred them on August 15, 2001, the Defendant calculated capital gains tax by deeming the transfer value as the actual transaction value at KRW 400,000,000, and the acquisition value as the standard market price at KRW 145,000,000, which is the difference as the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition from Nonparty 20. The acquisition value shall also be deemed as KRW 350,00,000 (350,000,000, - 145,000,000, which is the difference as necessary expenses.

E. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion is arranged by each taxable period as follows.

A. A. Additional tax amount of 2001 interest costs 2,01,012,00,000, the actual acquisition price of 309,404,020,000 D. Claim 2002 interest costs 149,44,000,000 D. Claim No. 0203 interest costs of 44,003,003,413 and 2004 interest costs of 2,332,648,413 and 2004 interest costs of 515,520,00,00 necessary expenses added to 515,520,00 or 1,000,000 global income amount of 1,450,000,000 global income amount of 3,002 interest costs of 2,003

3. Determination

(a) Statutes;

Attached Form 1 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

B. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the interest cost

(i)Recognitions

From 2001 to 2004, the interest paid by the Plaintiff as an obligor to a financial institution is as shown in the table Nos. 2 to 5, and the interest expenses incurred by the Defendant on his own or in accordance with the request for review are as listed in the table No. 3> and the statement of acceptance of the request for review. Ultimately, the amount of interest expenses that the Plaintiff seeks to additionally deduct in this case is as indicated in the table No. 3 ‘Additional Necessary Expenses'.

(d) 40,47,677,697,69,408,400 won deduction of KRW 38,912,00,00 won, KRW 141,766,00 won, KRW 134,048,00 won, KRW 314,726,00 won, KRW 00, KRW 52313,726,00 won, KRW 52327,204, KRW 200, KRW 4272, KRW 694, KRW 694,694, KRW 694,694, KRW 148,00, KRW 314,726,00, KRW 00, KRW 527, KRW 2527, KRW 20425, KRW 4285, KRW 138,205, KRW 1485, KRW 205, KRW 2005, KRW 2045, KRW 2045.

[Ground of Recognition] Evidence and Evidence Nos. 2, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27 through 32 (including each number)

Shed Judgment

In light of the following facts: (a) as seen in the table Nos. 1 through 4, most of the loan subjects of the principal and interest of a loan are corporate loans and the loan specified as household funds cannot be deemed merely as household loans in light of the size of the loan; (b) the Plaintiff appears to have difficulty in purchasing real estate with its own funds without a financial institution loan; and (c) there is no circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff is operating any business other than real estate sales business; (d) the Plaintiff paid real estate purchase funds from 2001 to 2004, which are additional necessary expenses, excluding the details already deducted or cited in the request for examination as above; and (e) it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,10,980,00 as interest paid on the debt directly used for the Plaintiff’s acquisition of real estate. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s interest paid in 201 to 149,400,400, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2005, 3001.

C. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the steel tower construction cost

(1) Claim for expenditure of steel tower construction cost

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts: Gap's evidence Nos. 4 and 25 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, Eul's testimony, and non-party 8 and 9's testimony, [the name of the construction: the civil construction work: the civil construction work for building site for golf practice range: the civil construction work for building site: the period from October 25, 2002 to December 31, 2003; the contract amount of KRW 800,000,000; the contractor: non-party 13; the contractor; the non-party 13; the steel tower construction: the steel tower construction; the construction period; the non-party 200,000,000, and the non-party 8: the contract amount of construction work; the non-party 90,000,000,000,000,000 from November 20 to December 31, 200; the non-party 19,0196.

Shes argument for the estimated decision

When it is possible to determine the amount of income by the method of the on-site investigation, it cannot be determined by the method of the on-site investigation. If the tax authority found necessary expenses corresponding to the omission of income during the taxable period by the on-site investigation and imposed global income tax, it cannot be deemed impossible to make the decision on the on-site investigation. If necessary expenses not recognized by the tax authority exist, it shall be asserted and proved by the taxpayer, and the income shall not be determined by the method of the on-site investigation to deduct necessary expenses (Supreme Court Decision 2002Du12786 delivered on December 12, 2003).

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff prepared relevant books according to the actual contents of real estate sales based on the documentary evidence, etc. already prepared for the transfer of a number of real estate other than each of the instant lands, and reported and paid business income, etc., and the Defendant determined tax base and tax amount according to the method of on-site investigation based on the remainder of the materials consistent with the facts other than the aforementioned parts. In this case, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed impossible to conduct a on-site investigation pursuant to Article 80(3) of the Income Tax Act, and thus,

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that if the tax amount determined by the method of the on-site investigation exceeds the tax amount determined by the method of the on-site investigation, the subsequent tax amount should be notified. However, in view of the fact that the Income Tax Act, in principle, requires the method of the on-site investigation exceptionally only when it is impossible to make the on-site investigation decision, the income tax amount determined by the method of the on-site investigation is smaller than the income tax amount determined by the method of the on-site investigation (Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6809 delivered on January 26, 1996), it is not determined whether it is legitimate or not (Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6809 delivered on January 26, 1996). Furthermore, it is calculated by deducting necessary expenses, etc. from the total income amount claimed by the plaintiff from the total income amount. In addition, in calculating the tax base, the tax base and the tax amount shall be determined by the standard rate of income by type of business or the standard rate of income by type of business shall be determined in consideration of ordinary necessary expenses.

Secondly, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

D. As to the assertion on the denial of title trust

(1) In full view of the evidence mentioned above, the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence 3, 11 to 25, 27 to 32, Eul evidence 5, 6, 7, 8, and 28 (including each number), and the witness non-party 9's testimony, the following facts can be acknowledged:

㈎ 원고의 처인 소외 11, 원고의 지인인 소외 9 및 소외 10(원고가 대표이사인 대경건설 주식회사의 상무이사)이 2002. 6. 20. 소외 14, 15로부터 광주시 송정동 산 (지번 1 생략) 임야 22,925㎡를 1,386,000,000원에 매수하는 매매계약을 체결하였고, 위 토지가 분할되어 산 (지번 23 생략) 임야 3,091㎡는 소외 11 명의로, 산 (지번 22 생략) 임야 9,917㎡는 소외 9 명의로(취득금액 600,000,000원), 산 (지번 1 생략) 임야 9,917㎡는 소외 10 명의로(취득금액 600,000,000원) 각 소유권이전등기가 마쳐졌다.

㈏ 다음과 같이 위 각 임야는 분할되고, 이 사건 1, 2양도가 이루어졌다.

(2) The forest land number of 1,000 square meters (number 22 omitted), 5,649 square meters (number 25 omitted) of forest land (number 22 omitted), 4,09 square meters of forest land (number 13 omitted), 5,469 square meters (number 13 omitted). (1) The sports land (number 13 omitted) 5,456 square meters of 20,000, 193 square meters of forest land (number 15 omitted), 193 square meters of forest land (number 24 omitted), 174 square meters of forest land (number 24 omitted), 174 square meters of forest land (number 15 omitted), 20,000 “1 transfer” (20,147, 2000 square meters of forest land)

㈐ 또한, 다음과 같이 소외 9 명의의 산(지번 22 생략) 임야 4,094㎡는 분할되고, 이 사건 3양도가 이루어졌다.

The details of the first transfer (unit: 2,000 square meters) of the number (unit: 2,000 square meters) located in the main text and the second transfer details of the second transfer, and 90 square meters of forest land (22,000 square meters of forest land) in a mountain (22,000 square meters of forest land) (3,194 square meters of forest land (22,000 square meters of forest land) (3,194 square meters of forest land) on February 9, 2004, August 10, 2004, Nonparty 17,461,000 "three transfer (18 omitted) of this case" (number 18 omitted).

㈑ 또한, 다음과 같이 소외 10 명의의 산(지번 1 생략) 임야 9,302㎡는 분할되고, 이 사건 4, 5양도가 이루어졌다.

The details of the division into the land (unit: 1,000 square meters) located within the main sentence of this Article shall be 6,165 square meters of forest land (2,00 square meters of forest land) 6,165 square meters of forest land (2,000 square meters of forest land (17 omitted) 5,867 square meters of forest land (17 omitted) on February 9, 2004 (1,770,000 square meters of forest land) 1,898 square meters of forest land (17 omitted) on August 10, 2004, Nonparty 18569,970 "the four transfer" of this case on August 10, 2004 (17 omitted) (5), 3,969 square meters of forest land (2,000 square meters of forest land) on December 30, 205, 200 (17 omitted).

㈒ 피고는 2004년 귀속분인 이 사건 1 내지 4양도의 소득금액을 다음과 같이 산정하였다.

1. Transfer 1 and 2 of this case: The plaintiff acquired under the name of the non-party 9 and 10 and transferred them to the non-party 1; the plaintiff deemed that it was acquired from the original date and transferred them to the non-party 9, and using the acquisition value of the non-party 9 and 10 as it is, the income amount of 108,569,000 won (the KRW 87,696,000 + the KRW 20,873,000) was added to the global income amount of the plaintiff in 204.

* Calculation of Acquisition Value

- The transfer value of this case : 440,00,000, and acquisition value of 352,304,000 = [600,00,000,000 of the acquisition value of forest land 9,917 square meters in mountain (number 22 omitted] ¡À9,917 square meters ± 5,823 square meters of forest land ± 174 square meters in mountain (number 24 omitted) + 5,456 square meters of the area of sports site £« 193 square meters in mountain (number 15 omitted), 1,000 square meters in forest land area of 5,456 square meters in mountain (number 15 omitted), for convenience of calculation 87,696,000 won in forest land area of less than 1,00 won (number 15 omitted), and the amount of income was calculated as 87,696,000 won in forest area of forest land (number 440,000,3524,00).

- The transfer value of this case - The transfer value of 122,00,000, and the acquisition value of 101,127,000 won / [600,000,000 won of forest land of 22,925 square meters ± 9,582 square meters (the reduction of the acquisition value of forest land of 22,925 square meters ± 9,917 square meters or 335 square meters after the lot number) 】 1,615 square meters (the number of 12 omitted) x 606 square meters of forest area of 897 square meters £« (number 12 omitted) £« 606 square meters of forest area of 112 square meters (number 27 omitted), 1,000 won of forest land area of 1,000 for convenience of calculation -1,000 won) - 2010 won of forest land of 20,873,000 won (number 200 won)

② The transfer value of this case 3 and 4 is deemed to have been acquired by the Plaintiff in the name of Nonparty 9 and 10 and again transferred to Nonparty 17 and 18, and the transfer value is to be determined on February 9, 2004; the transfer value is to be the amount investigated by the Defendant; and the acquisition value is to be calculated by deducting the difference between the acquisition value reported by the Plaintiff and the acquisition value reported by the Plaintiff (405,686,000 won for the Plaintiff’s report of the transfer of this case - KRW 193,243,000 for the acquisition value of Nonparty 9 of the third transfer of this case - KRW 457,567,00 for the Plaintiff’s report of the transfer of this case 3 transfer of this case - KRW 118,847,00 for the non-party 10 of the transfer of this case 4 transfer of this case) from its global income amount for 2004.

* Calculation of Acquisition Value

- The transfer value of this case - The transfer value of this case : 461,00,000 won - the acquisition value of 193,243,000 won - the acquisition value of 600,000,000 won of forest (number 22 omitted) ± the acquisition value of 9,917 square meters ± 9,917 square meters ± 3,194 square meters of forest area (number 22 omitted) 】 the income amount of 265,314,000 won (number 461,00,000,000 won - the necessary expenses - the amount of 193,243,000 won - the necessary expenses - the amount of 2,443,000 won for the convenience of calculation).

- The transfer value of this case - The transfer value of 569,970,00 won and the acquisition value of 118,847,00 won and the acquisition value of 118,847,00 won [60,000,000 won for the acquisition value of 22,925 square meters of forest land in Gwangju-dong, Song-dong, Gwangju-si Do ± ± 9,582 square meters (335 square meters after the original 9,917 square meters or subdivision) 】 (20 square meters for the convenience of calculation of 1,000 square meters) 】 the amount of income calculated as 449,669,000 won for the forest area of 1,898 square meters, for the convenience of calculation of 1,000 won (=569,970,000 won - 118,847,000 won - 1,45,00 won necessary expenses).

The transfer value of the Table (unit: 440,000, 352, 3042, 304, 304, 696 January 29, 2004; the transfer value of the instant 2 transferred 42,100,127, 873 small 562,000; 453, 431, 108, 569; 308, 400, 400, 6862, 432, 4352, 461, 464, 97, 98, 94, 197, 308, 400, 405, 4062, 432, 871, 461, 400, 4433, 243, 2463, 2465, 284, 2084, 1967

㈓ 피고는 2005년 귀속분인 이 사건 5양도의 소득금액을 다음과 같이 산정하였다. 원고가 소외 10 명의로 취득한 것을 재취득하여 다시 소외 19에게 양도한 것으로 보아 양도소득을 산정하였다.

The acquisition value of the transfer value of the title (unit: KRW 840,000, 956, 8413, 041-119, 882, 840, 848, 248, 248, 77, 280, 514, 192 shall be the necessary income amount of the transfer value of the title (unit: KRW 840,000) included in the main sentence of this case.

* Calculation of Acquisition Value

The transfer value of KRW 840,00,000 and the acquisition value of KRW 248,528,00 shall be deemed to be the income amount of KRW 248,528,00 [the acquisition value of KRW 600,00,000 for forest land of KRW 22,925 square meters ± 9,582 square meters (the acquisition value of KRW 9,917,000 for forest land of KRW 9,967,280,000 for the convenience of calculation) 】 (the acquisition value of KRW 1,000 for the convenience of calculation) 3,969 square meters for the forest land of KRW 1,00,000 for the income amount of KRW 514,192,00 for the income amount of KRW 840,000 for the income amount of KRW 248,528,280,000 for the income amount of KRW 208,200 for the income amount of KRW 2085.

In order to purchase the instant land from Nonparty 14 and pay the remainder, Nonparty 9 deposited KRW 636,00,000 in the name of Nonparty 9 in the name of Nonparty 10,000 under the name of Nonparty 9, and KRW 300,000 in the name of Nonparty 10, and KRW 186,00,000 in the name of Nonparty 14 in the name of Nonparty 11, but thereafter, the Plaintiff paid the principal and interest of the instant land from August 2002. In light of the following circumstances, in order to purchase the instant land from Nonparty 14 and pay the remainder, it is probable to deem that the Plaintiff actually purchased the instant forest in the name of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 10 in the name of Nonparty 14.

However, as seen in the above facts, it is acknowledged that the registration of transfer has been completed again for a part of the land in the name of Nonparty 9 and 10 to a third party. If the Plaintiff is a title truster of each share of Nonparty 9, 10, there is no reason to re-transfer the ownership as owned by the Plaintiff. ② There is room to deem that the Plaintiff’s subrogated payment of the loan by Nonparty 9 was the Plaintiff’s succession of the loan and subrogated for it while purchasing the land owned by Nonparty 9. ③ The Plaintiff’s conclusion of the instant sales contract with Nonparty 1 as the actual business owner of the Plaintiff’s own operation practice range in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, by taking into account the following factors: (a) it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s purchase of the forest of this case was made by dividing a part of the land into title trust with Nonparty 9 and Nonparty 10, which is the land’s own site in the process of transferring the civil construction works in the golf practice range and all business rights including steel tower works.

Ultimately, the Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax on the premise that the Plaintiff transferred the real estate trusted to Nonparty 9 and Nonparty 10 to a third party is unlawful.

E. As to the assertion of acquisition value of real transactions

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 8-1 and No. 2, around August 5, 2000, the plaintiff acquired 1/2 shares of 1/2 shares among the Hannam-dong (Land Number 21 omitted) (1,682.5m2) (1,682.5m2) and transferred it to non-party 16 on September 15, 2001, and accordingly, reported and paid the business income from real estate sales with the transfer value of KRW 160 million and the acquisition value of KRW 145,00,000,000, which is the actual transaction value, while the defendant imposed global income tax for the amount of transfer value of KRW 400,000,000, the actual transaction value of which is 400,000.

Furthermore, regarding whether the actual acquisition price of the above real estate is KRW 350,000,00 as the plaintiff's assertion, the actual transaction price cannot be confirmed because the plaintiff failed to submit objective evidence, such as financial data on the purchase price, and thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(f) Justifiable tax amount;

As above, among the plaintiff's assertion, the assertion on the cost of interest and the assertion on the denial of title trust should be accepted, and the reasonable global income amount against the plaintiff should be calculated

(1) Each annual global income shall be deducted as follows:

(1) 2,012,00 won paid shall be deducted from the amount of global income that reverts to the year 2001.

(2) 15,865,819 won [the interest paid in 2002 recently thereafter is merely 115,865,819 won with the amount of global income in 2002 or with the amount of global income in 115,865,819 won, which shall be deducted within the limit of such amount, and the remaining 33,578,181 won (per 149,44,000 won - 115,865,819 won) shall be deducted from the amount of global income belonging to the amount of global income belonging to the year 202.

(3) The amount of KRW 477,581,181 (the interest paid in 2003 + KRW 444,003,00 + the amount of KRW 33,578,181 carried forward from the amount of global income in 2002 + the amount of KRW 515,520,00 paid from the amount of global income in 2004; KRW 108,569,000, the amount of income paid in 108,569,000, and the acquisition value of KRW 3,43,163,00,00, including the amount of KRW 1,175,252,00 (the amount of KRW 515,520,520 + the amount of KRW 108,569,516,516,000 + the amount of income paid in 200) shall be deducted respectively.

(5) The income amount of the transfer of this case 272,748,000 won shall be deducted from the global income amount of the portion reverted to the year 2005.

She accordingly, if calculating the reasonable tax amount of the plaintiff,

(1) The global income tax on the portion reverted to year 2001 shall be 463,665,212 (the gross final tax amount = 465,710,457 - the already paid tax amount ② 2,045,245);

(2) The global income tax on the portion reverting to the year 2002 shall be zero won,

(3) The global income tax on the global income for the year 2003 shall be 2,372,125,910 won (the gross final tax amount = 2,475,027,463 won - the already paid tax amount KRW 102,901,553);

(4) The global income tax on the portion reverted to year 2004 shall be 701,394,795 won (the gross final tax amount = 907,029,229 - the already paid tax amount KRW 205,634,434),

(5) The global income tax on the portion reverted to year 2005 shall be zero won.

Article 7(1) of the Civil Code No. 1 of the Civil Code No. 463,65,212 of the Disposition No. 1 of this case; the part exceeding KRW 2,372,125,910 of the Disposition No. 3 of this case; the part exceeding KRW 701,394,795 of the Disposition No. 4 of this case; and the entire Disposition No. 2 of this case and the Disposition No. 5 of this case

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Choi Jae-han (Presiding Judge)