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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 00,000,000 on March 3, 2014 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

A. On March 13, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired multi-household housing 00-000, 000, Seoul, ○○-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on December 24, 2012, transferred it to 240 million and reported that capital gains tax is fully reduced or exempted as one house for one household at a tax office.

B. On March 3, 2014, the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff owned an unauthorized building located in 000-00, Seoul ○○○-dong, 000, excluded one household from capital gains tax reduction or exemption, calculated the acquisition value of the instant real estate as KRW 92,369,518, based on Article 114(7) of the Income Tax Act and Article 176-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and imposed an imposition of KRW 00,00,000 for the Plaintiff on March 3, 2014 (hereinafter the instant disposition).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, had filed an objection and filed a request for examination, but dismissed all.

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

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As to the acquisition value

The Plaintiff, at the time of March 13, 1996, decided to divorce with Kim ○, who was the husband, received the instant real estate on behalf of the amount equivalent to KRW 240 million for consolation money and child support, and also prepared a sales contract of KRW 240 million for the sales price at the time. Therefore, even though the acquisition price of the instant real estate was KRW 240 million for 20 million for the acquisition price, the instant disposition made by calculating the acquisition price as KRW 92,369,51

2) As to other necessary expenses

After acquiring the instant real estate, the Plaintiff disbursed 2,000 won as repair cost, and paid the amount above the acquisition value of the instant real estate with child support, such amount shall be included in the necessary expenses.

B. Determination

1) As to the assertion of acquisition value

According to Article 114(7) of the Income Tax Act and Article 176-2(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where there is no book, sales contract, or other documentary evidence necessary to confirm the actual transaction price of the acquisition value, or where it is obvious that it is false, the estimated investigation may be conducted in the order of transaction example, appraisal

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff submitted a contract to purchase the instant real estate from her husband Kim○○ on March 17, 1995 to 240 million won, which is acknowledged as being comprehensively based on the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 4 and 7, the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant real estate from her husband Kim○○○ on March 17, 1995. However, the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant real estate from her husband on December 1, 1993 to 16 million won, and the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant real estate from her husband on December 1, 1993. ② The officially announced value at the time of the Plaintiff’s transfer was increased to 2 times the Plaintiff’s transfer. If the amount of the said contract was true, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant real estate at the price at which the real estate was entirely omitted. ③ Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the Plaintiff’s ground for acquiring the instant real estate was written “donation on March 12, 1996.”

2) As to other necessary expenses argument

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of capital gains tax, the tax authority has the burden of proving the tax base that is the basis of taxation, and the tax base is deducted necessary expenses, and thus, the tax authority bears the burden of proving revenues and necessary expenses in principle. However, since necessary expenses are more favorable to the taxpayer, and most of the facts that generated necessary expenses are located within the area controlled by the taxpayer, and thus, the tax authority has difficulty in proving necessary expenses. Therefore, in a case where it is reasonable to allow the taxpayer to prove necessary expenses in consideration of difficulty in proof or equity between the parties, it rather accords with the concept of fairness (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du16137, Oct. 26, 2007).

On the other hand, this part of the plaintiff's assertion does not appear to have any objective material for the expenses claimed by the plaintiff, and the expenses used for raising children can not be calculated as necessary expenses for the real estate of this case.

3. Conclusion

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