[양도소득세등부과처분취소][판례집불게재]
Kim Jong-seok (Attorney Labor Freeboard, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
The head of North Korean District Tax Office
may 22, 1984
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 6,423,493 against the plaintiff on October 16, 1982 by the defendant and KRW 1,284,694 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of KRW 6,423,493 and KRW 1,284,698 on October 16, 1982 to the Plaintiff on the transfer income tax of KRW 6,423,49, and KRW 1,698 pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph 1 through 4, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 1,2, 4-1, 5-1, and 5-2 of the Income Tax Act, and the Plaintiff’s transfer price of the above amount calculated on March 26, 197 after deducting the amount of the transfer value of the assets at KRW 60,50 from the above amount of transfer income tax, KRW 1,284,69, and KRW 2,000 from the above amount of transfer income tax of KRW 67,00,000, KRW 36,000,000 from the above amount of transfer value of the assets at KRW 67,000,000 from the above amount of transfer.
However, the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 4 were transferred to 38,940,00 won, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's construction cost were 13,650,00 won, and if the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were combined to 1,254,898 won, the acquisition value of the above site and the factory was 53,84,898 won, and the non-party 2's transfer loss was 40,000 won and the non-party 4 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's 7's 7's 7's 4's 4's 7's 7's 4's 7's 7's 5's 7's 7's 10's 7's 7's 's ''' '6''' '4'''''''''''''''''''''' '''s 's '7's 's ' '4''s '.
Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the final return on the tax base for the transfer of the above assets is different from the actual transaction price in relation to the transfer value, and therefore, the tax disposition of this case imposing the transfer income tax and defense tax on the Plaintiff by calculating the transfer and acquisition value of the assets at the standard market price as seen above cannot be deemed lawful as a disposition made in accordance with the provisions of Articles 23(4) and 45(1) of the Income Tax Act, which were enforced at the time of the time, and Article 170(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s principal claim seeking the revocation of the instant taxation disposition is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the burden of litigation costs is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.
April 19, 1984
Judge Seo-dae (Presiding Judge)