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

A. On September 4, 1997, the Plaintiff jointly acquired the O-O building and its site (hereinafter the above building and its site collectively referred to as the above building and its site) with KK, YY and 1/3 shares, and on October 15, 2012, sold to SS KRW 2,200,000,000.

B. On April 9, 2013, the Plaintiff calculated transfer margin of KRW 733,333 equivalent to 1/3 of the transfer price of real estate in this case 2.2 billion won; the acquisition price is 614,460,000, which corresponds to 1/3 of the conversion price, considering that the actual transaction price is unclear; and reported after the deadline for return on capital gains tax of KRW 13,987,290; on November 20, 2013, the Plaintiff paid transfer income tax of KRW 284,190,000, calculated by subtracting depreciation costs on the premise that the actual transaction price of the instant real estate in this case is KRW 90,000,000, based on the acquisition price of KRW 99,780,220,000, which is calculated on the basis that the actual transaction price of the instant real estate in this case

C. On October 11, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of transfer income tax claiming a refund of transfer income tax paid by filing a revised return and payment for the reason that the actual transaction price of the instant real estate is unclear. However, on October 18, 2017, the Defendant rejected it on the ground that the actual transaction price of the instant real estate is KRW 900,000,000, and the Plaintiff filed an objection thereto.

D. The Defendant rendered a decision to refund KRW 10,455,709, totaling KRW 10,4709,000 on January 2, 2018 and January 10 of the same year to the Seoul National Tax Service, on the Plaintiff’s filing of objection, by adding KRW 101,200,000 to the capital expenditure disbursed in 2003, less the depreciation cost of KRW 47,417,531, which was appropriated as necessary expenses from 2003 to 2009, after subtracting the depreciation cost of KRW 47,417,531, which was appropriated as necessary expenses from 203 to 2009. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit following the pre-trial procedure by the Tax Tribunal.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, oral argument

The purport of the whole

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

Only a person who has filed a tax base return by the statutory deadline for filing a tax return under the Framework Act on National Taxes may file a request for correction against the determination of the tax base and amount of national taxes. However, the Plaintiff did not file a tax base return by the statutory deadline for filing a tax return under the Income Tax Act, and thus there is no right to file a request for correction against the Defendant’s taxation. Even if the Defendant’s response to the Plaintiff’s request for correction without the right to file a request for correction

B. Determination

(1) Article 45(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013) provides that a person who has filed a tax base return by the statutory due date of return may file a revised tax base return before the head of the competent tax office determines or revises the tax base and amount of the national tax and notify the tax base and amount to be returned under the tax-related Acts, if the tax base and amount to be returned fall short of the tax base and amount

Article 45-2 (1) A person who has filed a tax base return by the statutory due date of return shall exceed the tax base and tax amount to be reported under the tax-related Acts.

at the time, etc., the court shall determine or correct the tax base and amount of the national tax for which the initial return and revised return have been filed.

The following provisions stipulate that an application may be filed with the head of the competent tax office within five years after the filing deadline expires:

section 1.

Meanwhile, Article 105 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 12852, Dec. 23, 2014)

A resident who has transferred a real estate under paragraph (2) shall file a tax base of transfer income calculated pursuant to Article 92 (2).

Report to the head of the competent tax office within two months from the last day of the month to which the transfer date belongs;

(1) Article 110(1) provides that capital gains in the relevant taxable period shall be calculated as capital gains in the relevant taxable period.

For a resident with an amount of capital gains, the tax base of such capital gains shall be from May 1 of the following year of the taxable period.

By May 31, it shall be reported to the head of the competent tax office by no later than May 31.

The preliminary return may not be filed by a person who has filed a preliminary return.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, each of the above provisions merely exempt the taxpayer from the obligation to file the final return while imposing the obligation to file the final return and the obligation to file the final return, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the final return was not filed within the statutory due date of return on the ground that the preliminary return was not filed within the statutory due date of return. If it is deemed impossible to file a request for correction regardless of whether the final return was filed within the statutory due date of return on the grounds that the preliminary return was not filed within the statutory due date of return, the pertinent tax office did not file the final return on the grounds that the preliminary return was not filed, while the tax office did not file the final return on the other hand, but did not file the preliminary return on the other hand, but the tax office accepted the reported and paid details as they did not have any legal means to seek correction even if any error was found in the final return and payment, Article 26-2(5) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 12-3(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29534, Feb. 12, 120198).

D. However, in the instant case, the Plaintiff did not submit a tax base return of capital gains within the preliminary return deadline, but submitted it on April 9, 2013, which was before the final return deadline, and filed a claim for correction within five years from June 1, 2013, and the instant disposition that the Defendant refused to do so is subject to appeal litigation. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is lawful and the Defendant’s objection on the merits is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Key issue

(1) Article 97(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12169, Jan. 1, 2014) provides that the acquisition value as necessary expenses to be deducted in calculating gains from the transfer of real estate by a resident shall be, in principle, the actual transaction value incurred in the acquisition of assets. If it is impossible to verify the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition, the head of the competent tax office or the director of the competent regional tax office shall determine the acquisition value based on the actual transaction value, appraisal value, or conversion value as prescribed by Presidential Decree. In addition, Article 114(7) of the same Act provides that where the actual transaction value at the time of transfer or acquisition of the relevant asset is difficult to be recognized or verified by books or other evidentiary documents due to the reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree, the acquisition value may be determined or corrected by making an estimated investigation according to the transaction example, appraisal value, conversion value, or standard market value, etc., and Article 176-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24315, Jan. 16, 2013) provides that the above transaction value.

D. The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that, at the time of acquiring the instant real estate, the acquisition value should be calculated according to the conversion value because it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquiring the instant real estate.

B. Determination

In light of the following facts and overall circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 15 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings, the disposition of this case by the defendant which imposed capital gains tax by recognizing the actual transaction price at the time of acquiring the real estate of this case as KRW 900,00,000 is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion on different premise is without merit.

(1) No sales contract with respect to the sale of the pertinent real estate shall be disclosed.

However, in light of the fact that electronic data of Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office (No. 5 No. 2005, No. 5, a detailed review of the approval seal of the Plaintiff, KK, and YY (hereinafter the Plaintiff et al.) purchased the real estate of this case from the JJ to KRW 900,00,000 on September 1, 1997, the details reported to the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office were remaining, it is presumed that the Plaintiff et al. and the JJ form prepared the approval seal contract stating the sales price of KRW 900,000 (the Plaintiff also recognized the fact that the Plaintiff prepared the approval seal contract of KRW 900,00,000 on the sales price of the real estate).

She acquired KRW 940,00,000 for the purpose of leasing the instant real estate in this Court. Since the seller died before the transfer registration of ownership and delayed acquisition in the process of acquiring the instant real estate through a lawsuit between the heir and the heir and the pressure of funds, the LuxembourgJ testified to the effect that it transferred KRW 900,000,000, which was the lessee, to the Plaintiff, etc., who was the lessee, and that it performed duties, such as filing tax returns at the price of actual transfer.

J in the process of acquiring the instant real estate, the circumstance for delaying the acquisition of the instant real estate was actually confirmed by the JJ while taking a lawsuit, and its acquisition value was confirmed by the relevant court rulings. At the time the Plaintiff et al. acquired the instant real estate, the instant real estate was established with the maximum debt amount of KRW 640,000,000, and the JJ stated to the same purport in the process of investigating the transfer income tax of KK, which was implemented from August 9, 2013 to August 28, 2013, the period for exclusion of transfer income tax against the JJ was too excessive and did not concern the correction of transfer income tax. However, according to the fact that the Plaintiff et al. did not properly state the “building price at the time of the said investigation” price at August 22, 2013, which was submitted by the JJ at the time of the said investigation, it is difficult to reject the said GJ’s testimony in light of the above investigation report’s credibility.

The Plaintiff did not submit objective data, such as financial data or receipts, which can verify whether the amount of the purchase price paid to J at the time of acquiring the instant real estate was above KRW 900,000,000 (the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, etc. paid to J in the course of tax trial, and the Plaintiff, etc. accepted KRW 500,000,000 as security loan of the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff, etc. paid KRW 288,000,000 to JJ at least as the purchase price, and the Plaintiff, etc. did not appear to have submitted to the JJ at the time of the acquisition of the instant real estate from July 1997 to September 197, the market price of KRW 96,00,000,000, as well as the market price of KRW 100,000,000,000 as the market price of KRW 280,000,000,000.).

Applicant The Plaintiff included the value of the instant real estate in the financial statements (Sheet sheet) of 1997 to report global income tax on the place of massage practice operated by the Plaintiff as a partner in the instant real estate. In addition, KK, which shared the instant real estate, owned by the Plaintiff and the instant real estate, calculated the acquisition value at a conversion price as claimed by the Plaintiff in the instant lawsuit, and reported the transfer income tax.

On November 1, 2013, the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition of the instant real estate after the investigation by the tax office to be conducted.

It seems that there is no objection against the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 99,330,220 on the premise that it is KRW 900,000.

(v) at the time when the Plaintiff, etc. acquired the instant real estate, the standard market price of the site is KRW 920,400,000 (the officially assessed individual land price of KRW 6,000,000 per 197 ¡¿ 153.4 square meters), which is higher than KRW 900,000,000;

The JJ’s standard market price increase when it transferred the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, etc. (JJ acquired ownership in 1995 by entering into a contract in 193 and acquired ownership in 1993, the officially assessed land price in 1993 was KRW 5,20,000 per square meter, KRW 5,200,000 per square meter in 195, and KRW 6,000 per square meter in 197). However, in light of the process and value of acquiring the instant real estate by the JJ, and the degree of increase in standard market price between the period during which the JJ owned the instant real estate and the period during which it owned the instant real estate, the mere circumstance alone does not interfere with recognizing the acquisition price of the instant real estate as KRW 900,00,000 per square meter.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.