쇠鹬 쇠지鹬 3000 쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지 3000

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지지 3000

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 26, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the instant real estate at KRW 84,000,000 on April 26, 2008 to AAB BB Ri 438-2 located in Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and (b) claimed that the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate at KRW 84,00,000 from the CC General Construction on July 28, 2002; and (c) made a voluntary return and payment based on the actual transaction price.

B. In relation to the acquisition value, the Defendant: (a) deemed the conversion acquisition value as the real acquisition value pursuant to Article 114(2), (4), and (7) of the Income Tax Act and Article 176-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the reported acquisition value is excessive compared to the officially announced land price; (b) the former owner on the registry and the former owner on the sales contract are different from the former owner on the sales contract and lack of evidence; and (c) accordingly, issued the instant disposition to increase or decrease the transfer income tax for the year

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Plaintiff’s assertion and the issues of this case

(1) The Plaintiff lost all documents related to the transaction of the instant real estate due to the negligence of managing the real estate broker, and paid 84 million won to the NewF, the former owner of the instant real estate (the actual payment was made, excluding 18 million won, with the exception of the brokerage commission), and thus, the transfer income tax should be imposed by deeming the actual transaction price of KRW 84 million as the acquisition price pursuant to Article 97(1)1(a) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the disposition of the instant real estate that was grossized with the acquisition price converted into the acquisition price is unlawful.

(2) Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the disposition of this case, which the defendant revised with the conversion acquisition value under Article 114(2), (4), and (7) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 176-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, is legitimate.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 114(2), (4), and (7) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 176-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, where any omission or error occurs in the details of return filed by a person who has made a preliminary return of capital gains tax or a person who has made a final return, the chief of the competent tax office may rectify the tax base of capital gains tax and the amount of tax. In case of determining or correcting the tax base of capital gains and the amount of tax, in principle, the transfer or the amount of tax shall be based on the actual transaction value, but in case where the transfer or the amount of tax are based on the actual transaction value and where it is impossible to recognize or confirm the actual transaction value at the time of transfer or acquisition of the assets

(2) As to the instant case, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 3, Gap evidence No. 3, Gap evidence No. 4-1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 5, and Eul evidence No. 2, i.e., the plaintiff alleged that he/she paid 46 million won in his/her spouse's Tong JJ passbook, 12 million won in Seoul Livestock Industry Cooperatives ? 12 million won in loan from the former owner ? There is no objective evidence to prove that the above amount was paid to the transferor of the instant real estate. However, even if the plaintiff paid 46 million won in his/her spouse's Jung JJ passbook, 12 million won in Seoul Livestock Industry Cooperatives, 12 million won in loan to new FF, the former owner of the instant real estate, and 18 million won in consideration of the acquisition price of the instant real estate or other real transaction price of the instant real estate (CC) as alleged by the plaintiff, there is no objective evidence to prove that there is no other real transaction price of the instant real estate (3.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition, which the Defendant calculated the acquisition value of the instant real estate as the conversion value pursuant to Article 114(2), (4), and (7) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 176-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and adjusted the increased or decreased value,

3. Conclusion

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