취득 당시 실지취득가액을 확인할 수 없어 환산가액을 적용한 처분은 적법함[국승]
Busan District Court 2012Guhap1328 ( October 17, 2013)
Cho High Court Decision 201Da4744 ( December 21, 2011)
A disposition to apply the conversion value as it is impossible to verify the actual acquisition value at the time of acquisition is legitimate.
(1) In full view of the fact that the original declaration was filed at the time of conversion, but there is no consistent assertion, such as claiming the actual transaction value in the prior taxation review, and there is no reliable evidence, such as granting the right of repurchase to land and the contract on the conditions thereof, etc., the disposition applying the conversion price without recognizing the actual transaction price or the acquisition cost of the right of repurchase claimed by the
2013Nu413 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
AA
Head of the tax office
Busan District Court Decision 2012Guhap1328 Decided January 17, 2013
July 17, 2013
August 28, 2013
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's imposition of transfer income tax (this tax) for the plaintiff on August 4, 2011 and the imposition of transfer income tax (additional tax) for the plaintiff on December 3, 2012 against the plaintiff shall be revoked in all.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasons why the court should explain this case, and ① the court of first instance, Section 9, Section 9, August 8, 2011.
4. The second page "However, the plaintiff submitted the above sales contract at the close of pleadings in the first instance trial procedure or the tax appeal procedure," and the first instance court confirmed the above sales contract as at the second day, the above sales contract was mixed with the part printed on the paper of the material of the non-farmland and the part written on the paper of the non-farmland, and it was doubtful whether the contract was prepared at the time of the sales contract for the land of this case (as it is deemed that the contract was prepared at around 20 years prior to it), and the second page "the plaintiff submitted the above sales contract at the close of the first instance trial," and the second page of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act is cited as it is, as it is, Article 40 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, the above sales contract was written (as it is deemed that the paper was written at least 20 years prior to it was written).
2. Conclusion
Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.