2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

A. On September 8, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred 5,150,000,000,000 won to ○○○○○○○-dong 553-4, 2,373.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) which was acquired from △△○ Co., Ltd. on August 14, 2002, based on the officially assessed individual land price to ○○○-dong 553-4, 2,373.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On September 8, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred △△△△ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “△△ Construction”), and paid 1,082,714,040 won to the Defendant for the year 2006. < Amended by Act No. 7906, Nov. 30, 2006>

나. ○○지방국세청장은 2007. 11.경 원고에 대한 양도소득세 조사결과 2006. 8. 22 원고가 ◆◆보험 주식회사로부터 대출을 받은 과정에서 설시한 AA평가 법인 주식회사(이하 AA 이라고 한다)의 감정가액 9,018,540,000원을 시가로 보아 이 사건 토지의 양도는 ◇◇건설에 대한 저가양도에 해당한다고 판단하여 구 소득세법(2008. 12. 26. 법률 제9270호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제101조 소정의 양도소득의 부당행위계산부인 규정을 적용하여 피고에게 과세자료로 통보하였고, 이에 피고는 2008.1.4. 원고에 대하여 2006년 귀속 양도소득세 1,403,825,100원을 경정 ・ 고지하였다.

C. On January 30, 2008, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On December 31, 2008, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to re-examine the appraised value by objective and reasonable method on the comparison standard land and the appraisal factor, on the ground that the Defendant erred in the selection of comparative standard land and the appraised value was excessive, and thus, the Defendant made a decision to rectify the tax base and tax amount.

라. 이에 피고는 ◁◁원, 주식회사 ▷▷감정평가법인(이하 ▷▷감정 이라고 한 다)에 대하여 이 사건 토지에 대한 시가감정을 의뢰하여 산정된 각 감정가액을 산술평 균한 가액 7,570,827,000원을 시가로 보아 2006년 귀속 양도소득세를 당초 위 부과처 분액에서 532,111,710원을 감액한 871, 713,390원으로 경정 ・ 고지하였다(이하 이 사건 처분 이라고 한다).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 6 to Eul evidence 11 (including various numbers)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's principal

The plaintiff argues that the disposition of this case is illegal for the following reasons.

(1) The Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant land to △△ Construction is possible only in the name of the juristic person under the Building Act, and it does not have been transferred for the purpose of unfairly reducing the tax burden. The market price of the instant land calculated after the Defendant’s tax judgment is not only a retroactive assessment, but also a case where it cannot be deemed the market price under the Income Tax Act, the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and the Gift Tax Act, and its market price is unclear. Thus, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant land by using the value applying the officially assessed individual land price as the transfer price of the instant land is not a wrongful calculation. Thus, it does not constitute a wrongful calculation.

(2) A project owner who newly constructed a building on the instant land, ○○○○○○○-dong, 53-2, and 2 parcels, adjacent to the instant land, filed an application for provisional disposition with the competent court, and △△ Construction was unable to construct a main multi-purpose apartment with the size of 27th floor above the fifth floor above the ground, which was scheduled to be constructed on the instant land. As a result, even though the lower rate of the business utilization of the instant land was at least 5%, the appraised value on the Defendant side, which was the basis of the instant disposition, did not reflect the appropriate market price without considering such circumstances.

(3) According to Article 167 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, in a transaction between an individual and a corporation, where the transaction value falls under any of the market values under Article 89 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the provisions on wrongful calculation of capital gains cannot be applied. Thus, 5,150,000 won of the transfer value of the land in this case falls under any of the market values under Article 89 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and from the viewpoint of △△ Construction, there is no unfair tax reduction, and thus the defendant

(4) A building on the instant land was destroyed after the instant land was transferred to △△ Construction. However, KRW 1,692,800,000 in total and KRW 92,800,000 in the purchase price of the instant land and buildings on the instant land, including acquisition tax and registration tax, and KRW 1,692,80,000 in total and KRW 1,692,80,000 in the acquisition price or necessary expenses of the instant land should be included in the acquisition price or necessary expenses, the Defendant did not include the purchase price or registration tax, etc. of the instant building in the acquisition price or necessary expenses to be deducted in disposing of the instant land.

(5) Even if all the claims asserted earlier are not accepted, KRW 6,953,769,00 calculated by the court appraiser shall be deemed as the intent of the instant land, and the portion exceeding the transfer income tax calculated based on such intent shall be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

Multi-Recognition

(1) On August 14, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land and its ground reinforced concrete mix 648.51m2m2, 107.19m2, “27.19m2,” a general restaurant of 744m2,000m2 (hereinafter “the instant building”) from △○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a total of KRW 32,00,000,000 (the Plaintiff reported the value of the instant land, excluding the value of the instant building, to KRW 1,305,00,000,000, acquisition tax, special rural development tax, KRW 32,200,00,000, registration tax, KRW 48,000,000, local education tax, and KRW 96,000,000,000.

On the other hand, on August 20, 2002, the Plaintiff commenced a real estate rental business under the trade name of "Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Do," and reported and paid the value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax on the lease income of the building of this case by June 1, 2006. On the premise that the above building constitutes fixed assets for carrying on a real estate rental business, the Plaintiff included the value of the building in the financial statements as fixed assets item, and then reported and paid the comprehensive income tax by including the depreciation cost of the building of this case in the necessary expenses pursuant to Article 55 (1) 14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890, Feb. 28, 2007).

(2) △△ Construction is a corporation established with the purpose of housing construction business, real estate consulting business, real estate lease, sale and purchase business on January 19, 2006, and the Plaintiff held shares of 25% as the representative director of the said corporation.

(3) On September 8, 2006, the Plaintiff agreed to remove the instant building with the intention to transfer 5,150,000,000 won in the transfer value calculated according to the officially assessed individual land price to △△ Construction, supra.

이후 이 사건 건물은 철거되었고, ◇◇건설은 2006. 3. 7 ○○광역시장으로부터 이 사건 토지 지상에 지하 5층 지상 27층 공동주택 및 판매시설 연면적 32,205,22㎡의 주상복합아파트를 건축하는 내용의 건축허가를 받았으나, 이 사건 토지의 북쪽 인접지인 ○○ ○○구 ○○동 553-2 외 2필지 지상에서 2005. 5 경 이미 건축허가를 받아 27층 규모의 건물을 건축 중이던 주식회사 △△ 측이 2006. 11. 22. ○○▷▷지방법원에 2006차합3818호로 소유권에 기한 방해배제청구권을 원인으로 하여 ◇◇건설의 위 주상복합아파트 공사의 중지를 구하는 가처분신청을 하였고, ◇◇건설은 2007. 1. 18. 위 주상복합아파트 건설을 착공하였으나, 결국 2008. 7. 29. ◇◇건설의 위 주상복합아파트에 대한 건축허가는 지하 4층 지상 5층 연면적 16,468.18 ㎡의 판매시설, 근린생활시설로 변경되었다

(4) The Plaintiff and the Defendant submitted each of the following appraisal results on the instant land to the Tax Tribunal in the course of the hearing of defects in the initial disposition, but all of them cannot be seen as the intention.

그 결과 조세심판원에서는 피고에 대하여 객관적이고 합리적인 방법에 의해 감정한 가액을 재조사하여 그 결과에 따라 과세표준과 세액을 경정하라는 취지의 결정이 내려졌고, 이에 따라 피고는 ◁◁원과 ▷▷감정으로 하여금 이 사건 토지에 대한 감정평가를 하도록 의뢰하여 다음과 같이 산정된 감정가액을 산술평균한 금액 7,570,827,000원을 시가로 보아 이 사건 처분을 하였다.

한편, 이 법원이 감정인으로 선정한 ♤♤평가사무소(이하 ♤♤ 이라고 한다)는 피고가 의뢰한 감정평가결과와 이 사건 토지에 대한 다른 여러 감정평가결과를 재검토하여 다음과 같이 감정평가하였는바, 그 감정평가결과는 비교표준지 선정, 가격시점 수정, 개별요인은 피고가 의뢰한 위 ◁◁원 및 ▷▷감정의 감정평가결과와 거의 유사하고 다만 기타 요인 비교에서 다소 차이가 있을 뿐이다.

(5) ▽▽보험 주식회사는 2008. 8. ◇◇건설에 대한 대출 여부를 판단하기 위한 담보설정 용도로 주식회사 ■■평가법인(이하 ■■ 이라고 한다)으로 하여금 이 사건 토지에 대한 감정평가를 하게 하였는데, 가람통국은 2008. 8. 27.을 가격 시점으로 하여 최대 이용상태를 상정할 경우 그 가액은 9,967,860,000원인데 주변 건물의 일조권 문제로 인해 그 이용이 저해되었으므로 저해율 55%를 적용하면 이 사건 토지의 가액은 4,485,537,000원이라고 감정하였다.

한편 농협▷▷회 ○○지점은 2009. 2. 담보설정 용도로 주식회사 ♠♠평가 법인(이하 ♠♠ 이라고 한다)으로 하여금 감정평가하게 하였는데, ♠♠은 다음과 같이 이 사건 토지의 시가를 6,645,240,000원으로 감정하였다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each evidence of Gap's 7 to 10, Gap's 12 to 25, Gap's 28 to 39, Eul's 14 to 22, Eul's 14 to 22, Eul's 14 to 22, witness's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn'

D. Determination

① The reasonable market price of the instant land

The term "market price" under Article 167 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890, Feb. 28, 2007; hereinafter the same) refers to an objective exchange value formed through a normal transaction in principle, but when it is difficult to verify such market price, the appraised value in an objective and reasonable manner may also be deemed as the market price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2731, Nov. 26, 1991). Thus, unless there is no objective price formation, unless there is an objective price formation, if the appraisal after September 8, 2006, which is the time of the transfer of the land in this case, is corrected at the time of the transfer and it can be deemed as the market price.

그런데 앞서 본 바와 같이 ▽▽감정, ◁◁원, ▷▷감정, ♤♤, ■■ 등은 모두 이 사건 토지의 비교표준지를 ○○ ○○구 ○○동 447-6이라고 보고 있어 서 이 사건 토지의 비교표준지는 위 ○○동 447-6이라고 봄이 상당하고, 조세심판 당시의 ♠♠과 대한감정의 시가감정 결과는 이 사건 토지의 비교표준지를 ○○동 551-10으로 보고 있으나 위 감정평가결과는 이 사건 처분과 관련하여 세무조사가 개시되자 원고와 특수관계에 있는 ◇◇건설 측에서 개인적으로 의뢰한 것으로 객관적으로 평가된 것으로 보기 어렵고, 위 ▽▽감정, ■■과 2009. 2. 13자 ♠♠의 평가액은 가격시점이 2006. 1. 18., 2008. 8. 27 과 2009. 2. 13.로서 양도일인 2006. 9. 8. 전후 3개월 이내의 가액이 아닐 뿐만 아니라 평가의 목적도 금융기관이 담보설정을 위하여 보수적으로 평가한 것으로 보여 이를 적법한 시가감정 가액으로 보기는 어렵다.

한편 피고가 감정의뢰한 ◁◁원과 ▷▷감정의 감정가액은 구 소득세법 시행령 제167조 제5항, 구 상속세 및 증여세법 시행령(2008. 2. 29. 대통령령 제20720호로 개정되기 전의 것)제49조 제1항 제2호의 규정에 따라 2개 이상의 공신력 있는 감정기관에 감정의뢰한 결과로서, 위 각 감정결과는 비교표준지 선정, 개별요인 평가방식 및 그 결과가 상호 유사할 뿐만 아니라, 이는 이 법원이 감정의뢰한 ♤♤의 감정 결과와도 유사하여 피고 측의 감정가액은 그 시가를 적절하게 반영하고 있다고 보이고 산정과정에 어떠한 잘못이 있다고 보이지도 않는다(한편 가격시점이 적절하지는 않지 만, 이 사건 토지에 대한 위 AA의 감정가액은 9,018,540,000원이고, ■■의 감정평가결과 중 업체이용저해율을 감안하지 아니한 최유효 이용평가금액은 9,967,860,000원인바, 이러한 사정에 비추어 보아도 위 ◁◁원의 평가액 7,523,361.000원 및 ▷▷감정의 평가액 7,618,293,000원이 불합리하게 고가로 평가되었다고 보이지 않는다)

이에 대하여 원고는 이 법원의 감정결과를 토대로 이 사건 처분이 일부 취소되어야 한다는 취지의 주장을 하고 있으나, 피고 측의 감정결과에 어떠한 잘못이 있다고 볼 수 없음은 위에서 본 바와 같고, 법원감정인인 ♤♤의 감정결과는 독자적으로 감정평가를 실시한 것이라기보다 여러 감정결과를 선례로 종합하여 재감정한 것이며, 위 법령에서는 2개 이상의 감정기관의 감정결과에 의하도록 규정하고 있으므로 1개의 법원감정결과에 따라 시가를 사정하는 것보다는 피고 측의 감정결과를 존중하는 것이 보다 적절하다고 판단된다.

(2) Whether the enterprise's low-income rate should be reduced in calculating the appraisal value

살피건대, 위 인정사실에 의하면, 이 사건 토지의 거래가 있기 전언 2005. 5 경 인근의 ○○동 553-2 외 2필지 지상에 건물에 대한 건축허가가 있었고, 그 건물의 건축으로 인해 이 사건 토지 지상에 건축이 예정되어 있던 주상복합아파트의 건축공사가 중지된 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 한편 ① 이 사건 토지의 양도시점 당시에 시가 산정에 영향을 마철 요인이 내재하고 있다고 하더라도 시가를 감정함에 있어서는 객관적 ・ 현실적으로 인정되는 상황을 기준으로 하여야 하고 미래의 불확실한 사정까지 감안할 것은 아니라고 보이며, 인접 토지 지상의 건축에도 불구하고 이 사건 토지의 양도시점 이후인 2007. 1. 18 ◇◇건설은 이 사건 토지 지상에 주상복합아파트의 건축을 착공하는 등 시가평가 시점인 양도일 이후에도 상당한 기간 동안 이 사건 토지의 이용 상 장애가 현실화되지 않은 점,② 이 사건 토지의 가격시점을 양도일로부터 2년 정도 가 경과한 2008. 8. 27.을 기준으로 산정한 ■■의 감정평가 이외에는 의뢰인이 누 구인지를 불문하고 감정평가기관 모두 업체이용저해율을 감안하지 않고 있는 점,③ 원고 스스로도 ◇◇건설 측에 이 사건 토지를 양도함에 있어서 그 양도가액을 개별공시지가를 기준으로 산정하였을 뿐 이러한 업체이용저해율을 감안하여 감액하여 양도가액을 산정한 것은 아닌 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고가 감정의뢰하여 산정된 감정가액이 업체이용저해율을 감안하지 않았다고 하여 위법하다고 볼 수는 없다.

(3) Whether the transfer of the instant land constitutes a wrongful calculation

(A) In a case where a resident’s act of wrongful calculation is deemed to have avoided or reduced tax burden by abusing the various forms of transactions listed in each subparagraph of Article 98(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act without a reasonable method with a special relationship, it shall be limited to the case where the taxpayer denies it and has neglected the economic rationality due to the wrongful calculation of unfair acts in a manner that is objective and reasonable by the law. In light of the economic person’s position, it shall be limited to the case where it is deemed that the taxpayer neglected the economic rationality due to the wrongful and unreasonable calculation of unfair acts. Determination of whether the economic rationality exists is just a case where only the price relation of the transaction is not done with a person who is not a special relationship, but rather, it shall be determined based on whether the transaction was conducted with the economic rationality in light of sound social norms and commercial practice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Nu15719, Jul. 26, 196; 205Du19719, Jul. 17, 1997).

Therefore, as to whether the transfer price of the land of this case is abnormal in the economic rationality as a low-price transfer price in light of the above intention, it is general that the market price in the transaction with a third party who is not a person with a special relationship is formed at a much higher level than the officially assessed individual land price in real estate transaction. ② AAA which assessed the land of this case in the process of receiving a loan from a financial institution on September 8, 2006, before September 22, 2006, when the Plaintiff received a loan from a financial institution, which was 9,018,540,000 won, is difficult to calculate the transfer price as close to the half of the price. ③ Even if the transfer price is the tax to be borne by deducting necessary expenses, such as acquisition price, from the transfer price, the transfer price is the tax to be borne by the representative director after deducting necessary expenses from the transfer price, and it can be viewed that the Plaintiff’s economic rationality or 5% of the transfer price of the land of this case can not be seen as the market price.

(B) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that the transfer value of the instant land is based on the publicly assessed individual land price, and falls under one of the market prices stipulated in Article 89 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. According to Article 167(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the provision on the wrongful calculation of capital gains cannot be applied, and from the viewpoint of construction

However, Article 167 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890, Feb. 28, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 19890) provides that "Where a property is acquired or transferred between an individual and a corporation, its price falls under the price under Article 89 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act does not apply to the transaction of the corporation, the provisions of Article 101 (1) of the Income Tax Act shall not apply to the transaction of the corporation." However, even if the transfer price does not amount to the market price under the Income Tax Act, it appears to the purport that the transfer price falls under the market price under Article 89 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19891, Feb. 28, 200; Presidential Decree No. 19890, Feb. 1, 200).

In addition, in determining the illegality of wrongful calculation, Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "in the case of Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act, the tax burden on the corporation's income is reduced and reduced." The determination of the reduction of the tax burden is bound to be based on the corporation concerned, as long as the intention of subjective tax avoidance is stipulated as the requirements for the denial of wrongful calculation. Since the intention of taxpayer's subjective tax avoidance is not required as a separate requirement, the tax burden of all related parties did not decrease, so it cannot affect the judgment of illegality (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13184 delivered on February 11, 200). In light of the legal principle that there was no intention of tax avoidance, as seen earlier, since the land of this case was transferred at low price without economic rationality and the burden of capital gains tax has been reduced, the plaintiff's above assertion is not different even if it did not increase the overall tax burden of △△ Construction and the plaintiff

(4) Whether the value, etc. of the building of this case should be deducted as necessary

In light of the above facts, in a case where the land and the building on the ground were acquired to be used together with the land and the building on the ground, and only the land was transferred to be used as a site, the acquisition value, removal cost, etc. of the removed building may be limited to the time when it is clearly deemed that the acquisition of the land and the building was for the purpose of using only the land by removing the building from the beginning to the end of the commencement of the removal of the building within the short time period after its acquisition (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu53, Jan. 25, 1990). According to the above facts, the Plaintiff included the depreciation costs of the building in the necessary expenses while operating the real estate rental business within the holding period after acquiring the land and the building on the ground of the building on the ground of the building on the ground of its establishment, which the Plaintiff established to conduct the construction business on January 19, 2006, was difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s construction of the building on the ground of 20-day lease contract was for removing the building on the land from the beginning of the building on the date.

(5) Sub-committee

The transfer transaction of the instant land on September 8, 2006 between the Plaintiff and △△ Construction is based on the transfer value calculated by calculating the transfer value according to the officially assessed individual land price rather than on the adequate market price, and the Plaintiff, a person with a special relationship, transferred the instant land at a low price, and this would be an abnormal transaction with economic rationality in light of sound social norms and commercial practices. Therefore, the instant disposition, which the Defendant deemed the transaction of the instant land to constitute a wrongful calculation, and accordingly, deemed the transfer value to be the arithmetic mean of the values calculated at two values of appraisal institutions, is legitimate.

3.In conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.