객관적 교환가치와 동떨어진 소급감정가액을 시가로 인정하기 어려움[국승]
Suwon District Court-2018-Gu Group-7994 ( April 26, 2019)
Cho-2018-China-401,402,403,404 ( April 11, 2018)
It is difficult to recognize the retroactive appraisal value separated from the objective exchange value as the market price.
Even if the court's appraisal value is different from that of an objective exchange value formed by a general and normal transaction, it is difficult to recognize it as the market value.
Article 163 (9) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act
2019Nu10739 Revocation of disposition rejecting capital gains tax rectification
○○○ et al.
○ Head of tax office
Suwon District Court Decision 2018Gudan7994 Decided April 26, 2019
July 17, 2019
August 21, 2019
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The decision of the first instance court is revoked. On November 6, 2017, the defendant's rejection disposition of correction of KRW 242,606,750 against the plaintiff Lee Young-chul and the rejection disposition of correction of KRW 103,556,930 against each transfer income tax against the plaintiff Lee Young-young and Lee Young-chul shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and thus, it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
○ The 8th page 5 to 7 are as follows.
On July 2, 2009, after the inheritance date of this case and the donation date of this case, ○ Highway was opened in the vicinity of the forest of this case, and a large-scale apartment complex was established through the housing site development. Accordingly, the surrounding environment of the forest of this case surrounding ○○ Highway was significantly changed from the time of the inheritance and donation of this case." The plaintiff revised the comparison standard land and other factors by using the transaction cases in 2005 to 2007 with the appraiser of the first instance court. Thus, at least the market price of the forest of this case at the time of the donation of this case, the appraisal price of the above appraiser at the market price of the forest of this case at the time of the donation of this case should be recognized as the "market price of the forest of this case at the time of the donation of this case." However, since there was a sudden change in the surrounding environment of the forest of this case between the time of the donation of this case and the time of the market price appraisal by the appraiser of this case, it is difficult to believe the result of the appraisal after 11 year thereafter.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.