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

A. On December 30, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired and owned AAE 445-5 AF apartment 101 Dong 502 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) from the KimB on December 30, 1997, and transferred the apartment of this case to Jung-gu, Seoul, 445-5 AF apartment 101 Dong 502 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”). On November 1, 2004, the Plaintiff voluntarily paid the transfer income tax of KRW 190,000,000 to the Defendant on December 23, 2004, with the acquisition value of KRW 175,000,000, and the acquisition value of KRW 483,240,000.

B. On January 2, 2009, the Defendant: (a) viewed the transfer of the instant apartment between the Plaintiff and JungCC as an unfair act as a transfer at a low price between related parties; and (b) confirmed that 604 of the same area located in the same Dong as the instant apartment was transferred to KRW 252,50,000 on December 31, 2004; and (c) issued the instant disposition to correct and notify the said transaction example amount of KRW 16,393,020 calculated by applying the said transaction example to the transfer value of the instant apartment.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 through 6, Gap evidence 4-1 through 3, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since Article 101 (1) of the Income Tax Act does not provide any specific provision on the "an unreasonably reduced tax burden" and it cannot be delegated to the Presidential Decree, it is against the principle of no taxation without the law. ② Since transferring the apartment house of this case to his children, etc. is social norms, it is against the prohibition of analogicalization or expansion of tax laws and regulations. ③ Since the standard market price at the time of the transfer of the apartment of this case is KRW 153,000,000 at the time of the transfer of the apartment of this case, the transfer price of KRW 190,000 is not the transfer price of the apartment of this case, the transfer price of KRW 190,50,000 is not the transfer price of the apartment of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 101 of the Income Tax Act, Articles 98 and 167 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890, Feb. 28, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 60(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Article 49(1) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18989, Aug. 5, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply), if a resident with capital gains transfers assets to a related party at a price lower than the market price, he/she shall deny the resident's act or calculation by deeming the resident's improper act and calculate the amount of transfer at the market price at the time of transfer of assets. In such cases, the market price at the time of transfer of assets shall be free if transactions are made between many and unspecified persons, and shall include the amount of assets identical or similar transaction price.

Meanwhile, even if a resident’s act or calculation is consistent with objective facts and is legally effective and lawful, where such act or calculation constitutes a type of transaction that unfairly reduces the tax burden between the related parties under the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, it is sufficient to deem that a taxation authority imposed income deemed objectively reasonable and thus realizes fair taxation by supplementing the principle of substantial taxation. As such, wrongful calculation is sufficient in cases where a certain transaction between the related parties cannot be deemed as a normal transaction to be done by a reasonable economic person in light of social norms and customs, and thus, it is deemed that an unfair reduction of tax burden has been made, and it does not require any tax avoidance or economic loss (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du1799, Jan. 11, 2002).

(2) In light of the fact that the transfer price of the apartment of this case is about KRW 252,50,000 and the transfer price of the comparative apartment of this case that is similar to the apartment of this case and its size, location, use, etc. transferred at a similar time is about KRW 75% and seems to be too low, it is deemed that the transfer price of the apartment of this case can not be deemed as a normal transaction by the economic person in light of the social norms and customs, and thus, it is reasonable to deny the transfer price of the apartment of this case in accordance with the above unfair act and calculation, and the transfer price of the apartment of this case should be calculated according to the market price at the time of the transfer of the apartment of this case.

Furthermore, with respect to the value of the transfer at the time of the transfer of the apartment of this case, the market price at the time of the transfer of the apartment of this case is included in the value that is generally accepted in the case of free transaction between many and unspecified persons. As seen earlier, it is reasonable to calculate the value of the comparative apartment of this case, where the same apartment of this case and the area (the same Dong, the number of floors and the same six floors), the use (the same as the house) are similar, and it is transferred within three months before and after the transfer.

(3) Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's above A. (1) through (4) are without merit in itself.

3. Conclusion

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