2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 64,022,760 against the Plaintiff on June 10, 2014 is revoked.

A. On March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased each share of the GoA, HB, and KimCC on March 17, 2014 (hereinafter “instant land”) with respect to 00-0,000 OO-dong 00,000,000,000 + KRW 1,428,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

B. From March 17, 2014 to April 4, 2014, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the actual acquisition value of the instant land was not verified as a result of an investigation into capital gains tax against the Plaintiff; and (b) deemed that the actual acquisition value of the instant land was not verified; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of KRW 64,022,760, capital gains tax on June 10, 2014, based on the conversion price as KRW 162,225,983, the conversion price.

C. On March 30, 2015, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for inquiry.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since it is confirmed that the Plaintiff paid to GoA, etc. the total purchase price of KRW 41,760,00 ( KRW 930,000 in cash) and acquired the instant land, the instant disposition based on the premise that the actual acquisition price is not verified is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 97 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12169, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the acquisition value shall be one of the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value in calculating capital gains, and where the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition is not verifiable, the acquisition value shall be the actual transaction example amount, appraisal value or conversion value prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 114 of the former Income Tax Act provides that where there is any omission or error in the return of capital gains tax, the head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall correct the transfer income tax base and the tax amount, and where it is impossible to recognize or confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of the relevant assets based on books or other evidentiary documents for reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree, the acquisition value shall be determined or corrected based on the transaction example, appraisal value, conversion value (referring to the acquisition value converted from the actual transaction value, appraisal value or appraisal value by the method prescribed by Presidential Decree) or the standard market value at the time of the actual transaction price or payment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19465 Decided February 10, 201, etc.)

As to the instant case, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff and GoA, etc. did not submit a sales contract for the instant land made up between the Plaintiff and GoA, etc.; (b) GoA, etc. reported the transfer income tax on the instant land with the transfer price of KRW 38,698,800, which is the standard market price at the time of reporting the transfer income tax on the instant land on April 2004 and May 2004; (c) even if the Plaintiff purchased the instant land in cash, it is not easily understandable that the Plaintiff paid a large amount of purchase price; (d) the testimony of the Plaintiff Nos. 3, 4, and witness ChoD is difficult to be considered as objective data to verify the actual acquisition price of the instant land; and (5) there is no other data to prove the actual transaction price of the instant land, such as account books or receipts.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful to calculate the acquisition value based on the conversion price of the instant land, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.