2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why a party member should explain about this case are as follows: "No. 5 No. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance" is dismissed as "No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance" and "No. 2. (d) and No. 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance" as "No. 15 of June 1999," and "the plaintiff's assertion and decision of No. 2. (a) and the list No. 2. 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance" are as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and they are both cited as they are in accordance with Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the plaintiff's assertion of

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Although the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the exchange of the instant commercial building with Ma○○○, the Plaintiff subsequently discovered that the name on the register of the said land was Ma○○○, rather than Ma○○○○, and subsequently concluded a sales contract for selling the instant commercial building to Ma○○○○ at KRW 92,00,000 after cancelling the said contract. Therefore, the instant disposition for which the Plaintiff imposed the transfer income tax on the basis of the standard market price of the instant commercial building is unlawful, deeming the Plaintiff’s transfer to be an exchange for which the actual transaction price cannot be confirmed.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the exchange of the instant commercial building and the instant land with YOO, the Defendant divided the instant commercial building into the site and the building site and multiplied the ownership ratio by the standard market price of the site. The standard market price of the building was simply added up after multiplying the building area by the standard market price of the building. While the market price of the 10th and the 2nd floor among the buildings located in the instant commercial building exceeds 6 times much from 2 times the market price of the instant commercial building, the method calculated by the Defendant would result in unreasonable consequences that cause no difference in the standard market price between the instant commercial building and the 12th floor. This is more so even if it is compared with the successful bid price of the neighboring underground commercial building and the value of the instant land acquired by the Plaintiff in exchange with the instant commercial building.

Therefore, the transfer margin of the commercial building of this case is 45,396,380 won (=92,00-4,000-4,000-4,000-2,603,620) calculated by subtracting the acquisition value of 44 million won and necessary expenses 2,603,620 won from the transfer value of the commercial building of this case, or ② 84,876,073 won when calculating the transfer market price of the commercial building of this case in consideration of the successful bid price of neighboring underground floors, the acquisition value and necessary expenses are 38,272,453 won (=84,76,073-4,00,00-2,60-2,603,603,620), or 38,805,706,7086,7086,709,708,620,620) calculated by deducting the transfer value of the commercial building of this case as necessary expenses.

(3) Under the principle of no taxation without law or prohibition of excessive taxation, the tax amount calculated on the basis of the standard market price cannot exceed the scope of the gains from transfer based on the actual transaction price, and the gains from transfer calculated on the basis of the standard market price shall not exceed the actual transfer price. However, when calculating gains from transfer according to the method calculated by the Defendant, the calculated amount of capital gains tax of the commercial building of this case exceeds the amount of KRW 45,396,380 (based on the amount of KRW 92 million which is the largest gains from transfer), and the amount of KRW 209,946,979 calculated on the basis of the gains from transfer in the disposition of this case exceeds KRW 92 million in the actual transfer price. The disposition of this case is in violation of the principle

(Article 2d. Part of the Judgment in paragraph 2d)

D. Determination

(1) The first and second arguments are examined together.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff exchanged the instant commercial building with the instant land, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the developments leading up to the transfer of the instant commercial building; (b) the process of payment; and (c) the Plaintiff’s change that the owner of the instant land was ○○ at the time of entering into the exchange contract;

On the other hand, the actual transfer value of the relevant asset, which is the basis of calculating the amount of capital gains tax, refers to the value that the transferor transfers the assets at the time of the transaction and received as the price for the transfer and is objectively recognized by the sales contract or other documentary evidence. Thus, in case of the exchange of assets, it shall be a value exchange based on the monetary value of the object, and in case of the exchange of assets, the actual transfer value may be confirmed if the settlement procedure is accompanied with the difference in the appraisal value. However, in case of a simple exchange of assets, the actual transfer value shall not be confirmed (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du19841, Nov. 26, 199). According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff and Jeong○○ shall exchange the value of the instant commercial building and the instant land with the value of the instant land at KRW 92,00,000, and it shall not be found that the market value of the instant commercial building or the instant land was appraised by the evaluation of the market value. Thus, the transfer value of the instant commercial building shall be viewed.

Furthermore, the standard market price of the building site among the instant commercial buildings is calculated by multiplying the entire site area by the standard market price per square meter by the taxable area multiplied by the site ownership ratio, and the market price of the building site is the same as the underground floor or in the case of the first and second floors, and in the case of the first floor, the house price is higher than 5-6 times than the underground floor in the case of the first floor.

Therefore, the disposition of this case that the Defendant calculated capital gains tax using the same standard market price as above through the exchange of the Plaintiff’s transaction of this case is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion without any need to further examine the Plaintiff’s assertion that in calculating capital gains tax on the premise that the Defendant’s calculation method was erroneous, the amount reported by the Plaintiff, the successful bid price of neighboring commercial buildings, or the value of the land of this case should be based

(2) We examine the plaintiff's third assertion.

In a case where capital gains are calculated based on the standard market price, it is true that the tax amount calculated on the basis of the principle of substantial no taxation without law or prohibition against excessive taxation under the Constitution does not exceed the scope of capital gains on the basis of the actual transaction price, and that the capital gains calculated on the basis of the standard market price cannot exceed the actual transfer price (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu860, Feb. 11, 1997). Such reasons for taxation interference should be proved by a taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du8827, Sept. 22, 1998).

In this case, the transfer of the commercial building of this case is a simple exchange, not a value exchange based on the value of money, and thus it is impossible to grasp the actual transfer value. Unlike the plaintiff's assertion, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the tax amount calculated based on the standard market price exceeds the scope of the transfer margin based on the actual transaction value or that the transfer margin calculated based on the standard market price exceeds the actual transfer value.

Ultimately, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.