양도소득세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 31, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased 438 square meters prior to Daegu-gun Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B prior to subdivision,” and the parcel number is specified) in KRW 160 million. On April 12, 2010, B divided D previous 92 square meters from C’s land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 30, 2010 with respect to 456 square meters prior to C and 992 square meters prior to D.
B. On August 31, 2011, the Plaintiff divided E into two hundred and twenty-four square meters in land, and divided E into D land on December 12, 201, and divided D land into sixty-four square meters in total on December 23, 201.
C. After that, on January 5, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the sale on the 2th day of the same month (hereinafter “instant sale contract”) with respect to the instant land of 232 square meters and 1,152 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to C, and on the ground of the sale on the 2th day of the same month (hereinafter “the instant sale contract”), G completed the registration of ownership transfer to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”); on January 12, 2012, as to the instant land, on the ground of the sale on the 2th day of the same month (261 million won in the transaction value) of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband’s H (Plaintiff’s share 4/5 and H 1/5).
The Plaintiff did not report the transfer income tax on the instant sales contract, and on January 2, 2013, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax of KRW 44,646,360 (including additional tax) by deeming the transfer value as the market price at the time, on the ground that the instant sales contract constituted “unlawful calculation of transfer income” under Article 101(1) of the Income Tax Act by deeming the transfer value of KRW 261 million, not KRW 160,000,000,000 as the market price at the time (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection on March 20, 2013, but the Defendant rejected the application, and the Plaintiff again filed an appeal on July 11, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal decided to dismiss the application on April 3, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, Eul's 1, 6, and 8 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. This.