Article 61 (Appraisal of Real Estate, etc.)

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (Appointed Party).

가. 원고 및 선정자(이하 '원고들'이라 한다)는 2007. 4. 25. 장○희(원고의 어머니이 자, 선정자 권◯량의 며느리이다)로부터 ◯◯시 기◯구 보◯동 553 ◯◯마을 ◯◯아파 트 1◯5동 1◯◯4호(이하 '이 사건 아파트'라 한다)에 대한 각 2분의 1지분씩을 증여받고, 증여 당시 기준시가인 280,000,000원의 각 2분의 1에 해당하는 140,000,000원에 물가 상승률 4%에 해당하는 5,600,000원을 가산한 145,600,000원을 각 증여재산가액으로 하 여 원고는 11,808,000원을, 선정자 권◯량은 16,308,000원을 증여세로 신고 ・ 납부하였다.

나. 피고는 2008. 2. 1. 이 사건 아파트와 동일한 단지 내의 같은 동 1301호가 2005.7. 25. 580,000,000원에 거래된 바 있음을 확인하고, 이를 상속세 및 증여세법(이하 '법'이라 한다) 제60조 제2항에 기하여 이 사건 부동산의 시가로 보아 증여세를 산정하고, 자진납부세액을 공제하여, 2008. 1. 2. 원고에게 29,699,450원, 선정자 권◯량에게 29,483,450원을 각 부과하였다.

C. On April 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On October 20, 2008, the Tax Tribunal decided to re-examine the market price at the time of donation of the apartment of this case. Accordingly, the defendant confirmed that the number of floors in the same complex as the apartment of this case and the size of the apartment of this case are the same 108 dong 1802 dong 1802 (hereinafter referred to as the "sale apartment of this case") traded KRW 473,00,00 on June 6, 2007. The above sales price is deemed the market price of the real estate of this case, and the gift tax against the plaintiffs was reduced to KRW 18,692,670, respectively (the disposition of this case was imposed on January 2, 2008).

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1-3, Evidence No. 4-5, Evidence No. 1-4, Evidence No. 2-1-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

In light of the fact that ○○○ intended to sell the instant apartment in KRW 450,000,00, but it was difficult to sell the instant apartment complex because of the lack of real estate transactions. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff donated to the Plaintiffs, the transaction value of the apartment in the instant apartment case cannot be recognized as the market price of the instant apartment. Therefore, the instant apartment should be calculated based on a different method, such as the standard market price, in the case where there is no transaction example corresponding to the market price within three months from the donation date.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 60 (Principles, etc. of Appraisal)

Article 61 (Appraisal of Real Estate, etc.)

C. Determination

If the provisions of related Acts and subordinate statutes such as Article 60 (1) and (2) of the Act, Article 49 (1) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the value of the donated property should be based on the market price as of the date of donation in principle, but if free transfer transaction is conducted between many and unspecified persons, the value of the donated property can be imposed on the basis of the size, location, use and issue of the property concerned and if there is a fact that has been traded within three months before and after the date of donation of the other property or if there is a fact that has been traded within three months before the date of donation, the price of the donated property can

In full view of each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 7, the apartment in the apartment complex of this case is 20 floors in total, and the location, area, donation and sale date, transaction amount and standard market price of the apartment of this case and the apartment of this case, and other similar transactions transacted for three months before and after the donation date of the apartment of this case can be acknowledged as follows:

In general, the fact of the above recognition is the direction of comparison with the apartment of this case, but the apartment of this case is located on the same floor among the residential apartment of the same floor in the same apartment complex, the area and standard market price of the apartment of this case are the same, and there is no other situation that seems that the market price is higher than the apartment of this case, the sale date is about 110 days from the donation date of the apartment of this case, and there is no other data that can be recognized the minimum number of points from among the similar transaction price of the apartment of this case, and there was a significant change in the apartment price of this case between this, there is no data that can be considered that there was a significant change in the apartment price of the apartment of this case. Therefore, the defendant's disposition that the transaction price of the apartment of this case is the market price of the apartment of this case as of the donation date of the apartment of this case is legitimate pursuant to Article 60 (1), Article 60 (2), Enforcement Decree, Article 49 (1) and (5) of the Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of each disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.