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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 398,281,180 for the Plaintiff on January 5, 2015 shall be revoked.

A. On March 17, 2004, the Plaintiff, along with his mother BB, acquired from E the land of this case ( Plaintiff 878.4 shares, BBB 1464 shares, 585.6 shares) the size of 323-6 forest land of Dadong 323-6 forest land of this case (hereinafter “instant land”). However, on June 2, 2009, the Plaintiff sold KRW 1.199 billion at KRW 1.9 billion, but did not report capital gains tax.

B. In imposing capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on January 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s transfer price of the instant real estate is KRW 71.4 million (1,90,000,000 x 878.4/1464 shares), the acquisition price is unclear; and (b) deemed that the acquisition price is unclear, the acquisition price is determined and announced to the Plaintiff as KRW 407,562,231 (7,562,231 (714,00,000 x the officially announced land price at the time of acquisition x KRW 133,000 / the officially announced land price at the time of transfer / the officially announced land price at KRW 233,00) for the capital gains tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 27, 2015, but was dismissed on September 3, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, oral argument

The purport of the whole

2. Determination of legality of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s mother, FF, whose father is the Plaintiff’s father, is divorced from BB, and a divorce application

Since the land of this case was purchased at KRW 880 million from EE, the former owner of the land of this case, the acquisition value of the real transaction value of the real estate of this case is KRW 528 million, an amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share ($880,000, X878.4/1464), and the capital gains tax is calculated at KRW 1). This amount includes both the capital gains tax for the real estate of this case and the additional tax for negligent tax and the additional tax for unfaithful tax for the same 489-5, which is the Plaintiff’s other transferred real estate.

B. Determination

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act shall be the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value in calculating the transfer income.

Article 114 of the Income Tax Act provides that the acquisition value shall be determined and corrected by means of a transaction example, appraisal value, appraisal value or conversion value prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of assets, the acquisition value may be determined based on the actual transaction value if a person liable to file a final return on the tax base of capital gains fails to file such return. However, where it is impossible to recognize or confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of the relevant assets through books or other evidentiary documents due to the reasons prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the acquisition value may be determined and determined based on the transaction value, appraisal value, conversion value (referring to the actual transaction value, sale price, or appraisal value converted by the method prescribed by the Presidential Decree), or the standard market value, etc.; Article 176-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that where it is impossible to recognize or confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of assets (where there is a transaction example of assets having the relevant identity or similarity within three months before or after the date of acquisition), the average market price (in order of assets at the time of acquisition), the appraisal value at least two months after the date.

Therefore, the sales contract (Evidence No. 5) entered the purchase price of KRW 880,000,000 as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaintiff. However, although the sales contract (Evidence No. 5 of this case) entered the sale price of KRW 8800,000,000,000, it is difficult to believe that the real estate agent did not enter that the sale price was a large amount of transaction. The copy of the cashier's check (Evidence No. 9 of this case) was issued in relation to the land of this case, it is not clear whether the above cashier's checks were issued in relation to the land of this case, whether they were paid to EE, and the receipt (Evidence No. 7 of this case) are insufficient to recognize it solely.In addition, the sale contract (Evidence No. 5 of this case) stating that EE reported the transfer price of KRW 49,000,000 at the time of selling the land to the plaintiff and BB, it is more than 400,000,0000 won,000 won.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.