The actual transaction value of the assets acquired through donation is calculated on the basis of the appraised amount under Articles 60 and 61 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. If it is difficult to calculate the market price on the date of commencing the inheritance or the date of donation, the value of the assets on which the inheritance tax or gift tax is levied shall be calculated on the market price as of the date of commencing the inheritance or the date of donation, the land price shall be determined on the basis of the publicly notified value by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and in the case of the property on which the mortgage or pledge is established, the value of the property, whichever is larger, shall be the amount of the claim secured by the property, and in the case of the property on which the mortgage or pledge is established, it shall be calculated on the basis of the standard market price of the joint collateral real estate. The calculation of the appraised amount by using the officially assessed individual land price, etc. on the ground that the actual acquisition value cannot be verified

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on February 17, 2012 is revoked by the Defendant’s OOO(OOOOwon + additional additional OOOOOwon + increased additional OOOOOwon) and OOOwon of local income tax (OOOwon of local income tax + additional OOOwon of local income tax).

A. The Plaintiff received the gift of 600-2 296 m2 and 73.92 m2 m2 ofCC, 599-2 378 m2, 563-12 m2, and 533 m2 m2 (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) from YB as of September 2, 2004 from YB, and each of the above real estate was sold to others at the auction procedure from February 19, 2009 to December 16, 2009.

B. On February 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) determined the transfer value of each of the instant real estate as an aggregate of the successful bid price; (b) determined the acquisition value as either the amount assessed based on the publicly assessed individual land price and the standard market price of the building; and (c) issued a disposition imposing capital gains tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On May 16, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for review against it, but received a decision of dismissal on June 25, 2012, and received a decision of dismissal from the Tax Tribunal on July 19, 2012 on the ground that the same request for review was under trial.

Facts with no dispute arising in recognition, Gap evidence 1, 5, 8, 9 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of legality of a claim for revocation of imposition of capital gains tax additional charges and aggravated additional charges and imposition of local income tax among the instant lawsuit

A. Part on the claim for revocation of imposition of capital gains tax additional charges and increased additional charges

Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that if national taxes are not paid by the due date, the amount to be collected in addition to the notified amount of tax pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act and the amount to be collected in addition to such amount shall be the additional dues, if national taxes are not paid by the due date after the due date. This is naturally generated pursuant to the provisions of Acts, such as the National Tax Collection Act, without due process by the tax authority, if national taxes are not paid by the due date, and thus, guidance on the payment of additional dues ordinarily notified while a tax notice is served by the tax authority cannot be deemed a disposition subject to appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da15482, Jun. 10, 2005).

B. The part on the claim for revocation of imposition of local income tax

According to Articles 176-9(1), 176-1(1), and 177-4 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010), local income tax shall be paid to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the place for payment of income tax, and the defendant in an appeal suit seeking revocation of such disposition shall be the head of the Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the place for payment of income tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11459, Feb. 25, 2005). Therefore, seeking revocation of the disposition imposing local income tax against the defendant who is not the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office is unlawful as it is against a non-qualified person.

3. Determination on the remainder of claims

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received from SB a gift with a burden of accepting the total debt amount of SOO on each of the above real estate from SB, i.e., collateral security obligations under the name of the financial institution, but at the time of reporting the gift tax on each of the above real estate, the public official in charge at the time of reporting the gift tax on each of the above real estate under an assessment of the amount of the debt amount. Since the transfer margin is merely the difference between the transfer value of each of the above real estate and the amount of debt on each of

B. Determination

(1) Relevant statutes

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act provides that the transfer value of assets for the calculation of capital gains shall be based on the actual transaction value between the transferor and the transferee at the time of transfer of the assets, i.e., the actual transaction value, and Article 97(1) provides that the acquisition value shall be based on the actual transaction value or the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition in cases where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction value or the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of assets. In addition, the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition shall be calculated based on the value prescribed by the Presidential Decree under Articles 60 and 61 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. In addition, where it is difficult to calculate the market value on the basis of the market price as at the date of commencement of inheritance or donation, the land price shall be based on the publicly notified price by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the building, and Article 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the amount of the relevant assets secured and the amount of

(2) Determination

According to the above evidence, in the course of the Plaintiff’s filing of gift tax on each of the instant real estate on May 26, 2005, the assessment of the value of the property was made as a total of OOOOOO won, a publicly assessed individual land price, and OB’s donation with the burden of taking over the debt of OB, and the amount of the gift tax was determined to be reduced as OOOO. < Amended by Act No. 6006, Mar. 6, 2005; Act No. 600-2, the assessed individual land price, etc. at the time of donation of each of the instant real estate was also determined by OOOO, 60-2, and on each of the above real estate, OOO was also determined as OOO in the case of the instant real estate, with the maximum amount of debt under the name of EE bank with the debtor with the above real estate, and the remaining real estate was established as OO won in the case of the co-mortgage.

Therefore, it is just to calculate the assessed amount using the officially assessed individual land price as it is impossible to verify the actual acquisition value of each real estate of this case, and there is no error in law regarding the assessed amount as the acquisition value in that it is larger than the amount of the claim for each real estate of this case, and there is no legal basis to deduct the total amount of the debt of BB, claiming that the Plaintiff received the onerous donation from the calculation of transfer margin, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the disposition of this case in this argument is legitimate.

4. Conclusion

Among the instant lawsuits, each of the claims for revocation of capital gains tax surcharges, increased additional charges, and imposition of local income tax imposed on February 17, 2012 is dismissed in entirety as unlawful. The Plaintiff’s remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit.