2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On September 8, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired Seoul**Gu* Dong***** 201 (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) on May 15, 2012, and transferred the said real estate to *** 293 million (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”) on July 27, 2012, and paid capital gains tax of KRW 14,923,220 to the Defendant on July 27, 2012 with the acquisition value of the instant real estate as KRW 177,50,000.

B. On November 1, 2014, the Defendant denied the acquisition value of the instant real estate reported by the Plaintiff after conducting a field investigation on the instant real estate, calculated the acquisition value of KRW 101,00,000, which is the standard market price at the time of commencing the inheritance, as the acquisition value, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the transfer income tax of KRW 26,325,840 (including additional tax) for the year 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 3, 2015, but the said tax appeal was dismissed on April 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The transfer income tax shall be calculated on the basis of the acquisition value of the appraised value retroactively to the market price at the time of inheritance by consultation or division. Accordingly, the transfer income tax shall not be paid in excess of the transfer income tax paid by the Plaintiff according to the scheduled return.

B. Determination

In imposing capital gains tax on the transfer of inherited property, even if the tax authority assessed the acquisition value of assets as a publicly assessed individual land price on the ground that it is difficult to assess the market price at the time of inheritance of assets, if the market price at the time of inheritance is proven at the time of the closing of argument in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the said taxation, it should be determined on the basis of the market price, and whether the amount of the said taxation exceeds the reasonable tax amount. Here, “market price” refers to the objective exchange price formed through a normal transaction in principle, but this is a concept that includes the value assessed in an objective and reasonable manner, so if there is no exchange price through a transaction, the appraisal price at a reliable appraisal institution may be deemed as “market price.” This does not change even if the value is determined by retroactive appraisal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8751, Sept.

According to these legal principles, according to the results of the fact-finding and the overall purport of the argument of this court about 00 by applying these legal principles to this case, appraiser 00 is selected as appropriate precedents, and considering the price fluctuation rate and the location, shape, environment, and current use of the real estate of this case, it appears that the real estate of this case is appraised in an objective and reasonable manner. Accordingly, the market price of the real estate of this case on September 8, 2003, which is the time of inheritance, is assessed as KRW 180 million. In this case, there is no capital gains tax to be paid by the plaintiff exceeding the amount scheduled by the plaintiff to transfer the real estate of this case.

Therefore, the disposition of this case should be revoked illegally, and the plaintiff's assertion disputing this issue is justified.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted with due cause, and it is so decided as per Disposition.