Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income Tax)

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. ** 314-3, 55, 916 square meters of ○○○○○-5, 916 square meters of farmland in Eup was divided into land in mountain 114-3, 550 square meters of forest in mountain, 114-4, 1657 square meters of forest in mountain, 114-5, 539 square meters of forest in mountain, 114-10, 860 square meters of forest in mountain, 114-10, 114-11, and 530 square meters of forest in mountain (hereinafter referred to as “san 114-3, 4, 5, 10, and 11-5 parcel of land in this case), including 114-1, 13 square meters on the same day, on October 21, 1999

B. On September 27, 198, the Plaintiff acquired and owned KRW 180,000,000,000,000 from the above ○○○○○○○○○, 315-5 Forest land, KRW 916,00,000,000, and transferred the instant real estate to the non-party △△△△ on June 28, 2004.

C. On September 30, 2004, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer value and acquisition value of the instant real estate as the actual transaction value, and the transfer value shall be KRW 120,000,000, and the acquisition value shall be KRW 315-5,00,000,000,000, based on the premise that the Plaintiff purchased approximately KRW 18,000,000,000,000 in total, including the instant real estate, at KRW 60,000,000,000 calculated on the basis that the Plaintiff purchased KRW 315-5,916,00,000,000, in total, KRW 75,000 (=180,000x 1,250/3,000). Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,981,500.

D. On October 1, 2008, the Defendant recognized that the real transaction value reported by the Plaintiff was appropriate after investigating whether the transfer income tax was underreported. However, the transfer value calculated gains by recognizing the transfer value as KRW 271,00,000, which was reported by the transferee of the said real estate after the fact that the transferee of the said real estate acquired the transfer value, and then additionally determined and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax reverted to the portion of 2004.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfed Facts, Evidence 1, 2, 6, 7, Evidence 9-1 to 3, Evidence 1-1, 2-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On June 28, 2004, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the instant real estate to new Do-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City in KRW 120,000,000; and (b) submitted the real real estate sales contract, promissory note notarial deed, confirmation document, etc. with documentary evidence. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition that corrected the tax base and tax amount of capital gains tax by applying the actual transaction value at the time of the transfer of the instant real estate to KRW 271,00,00

(b) Related statutes;

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7289, Dec. 31, 2004) which was enforced at the time of the transfer of the instant real estate, gains from the transfer of land should be calculated on the basis of the standard market price. However, in exceptional cases, such as where the transferor files a return on the actual transaction amount along with evidential documents by the deadline for filing the final return, etc., the transfer margin should be calculated on the basis of the actual transaction amount (main sentence and proviso of Article 96(1) and Articles 6(1)6 and 97(1)1(a) of the former Income Tax Act). Moreover, barring any special circumstance, it is presumed that the transaction party prepared and signed and approved by the head of the Si/Gun, etc., in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, and that the contract was prepared differently from the actual transaction amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2353, Apr. 9,

(2) However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 3, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, Gap evidence Nos. 8, and Gap evidence Nos. 10 through 12, the plaintiff submitted a real estate sales contract and a certificate of personal seal (Evidence No. 5-1) to the effect that the real estate of this case was transferred to non-party 120,000,000 won in the process of investigating the return and payment of the tax base of capital gains on Sep. 30, 2004 at the time when the preliminary return and payment of the tax base of capital gains was made on Sept. 30, 2004, and thereafter around May 2008, the plaintiff submitted a certificate of deposit No. 120,000 won to the non-party 1,000 won to the plaintiff on Jun. 28, 2004, a promissory note No. 1,000,000 won (Evidence No. 3). 81,01).

However, in light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5-2, 6, and 9-1 through 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5 (including the serial number) and the overall purport of the pleadings, the following circumstances, namely, ① the plaintiff and the non-party 2 were 00,000,000 won at the time of obtaining land transaction permission for the transfer of the real estate from the 10-party 20-party 1 and the 0-party 20-party 1 and the 0-party 20-party 1 and the 0-party 20-party 1 and the 0-party 20-party 1 and the 0-party 20-party 1 and the 0-party 20-party 1 and the 0-party 20-party 1 and the 0-party 20-party 1 and the 0-party 20-party 1 and the 0-party 200-party 1 and 7.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which calculated capital gains tax based on the amount of KRW 271,00,000 as stated in a sale and purchase agreement, which was submitted at the time of land transaction permission and ownership transfer registration, is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case shall be rejected and dismissed.