양도소득세부과처분취소
1. Disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 214,305,330 on March 1, 2014 by the defendant against the plaintiff A on March 1, 2014, 92,696.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 22, 2002, the Plaintiffs and C acquired a building of 119.4 square meters and above ground (hereinafter “instant site”; the building part; the “instant building”; and the site and building; and the “instant real estate” (Plaintiff A3/5 shares, Plaintiff B1/5 shares, and C1/5 shares); and thereafter C transferred the instant real estate to the Plaintiff on December 2, 2002, and the Plaintiffs transferred the instant real estate to the Saemaul Community Depository on May 31, 2013.
B. On July 31, 2013, the Plaintiffs calculated the transfer price of the instant real estate to the Defendant as KRW 2,131,00,00,000 (=Plaintiff A 1,704,80,000 won (Plaintiff B 426,200,000 won) and the acquisition price as the actual transaction price of KRW 1,265,00,000 [Plaintiff A 1,006,256,254 won (=Plaintiff A 1,006,254,692,63 won as the actual transaction price of April 22, 2002) and paid KRW 251,564,211 won as the actual transaction price of Plaintiff B 251,564,211 won as the actual transaction price of December 22, 2002) and Plaintiff A paid the transfer income tax of KRW 156,81,818,260,79,797.
C. On the premise that the acquisition value of the instant real estate was KRW 550,00,00, the Defendant, on March 1, 2014, issued a decision to additionally pay KRW 214,30 (including KRW 55,414,239, KRW 9,543,322, and KRW 48,540,470, and KRW 2,238,736, and KRW 236,736 of the transfer income tax for the year 2013 on the premise that the acquisition value of the instant real estate was KRW 550,00,00.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
The plaintiffs had gone through the procedure of the previous trial.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 evidence, Eul 9 evidence (including a provisional lot number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. (1) The Defendant’s instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful, since the actual acquisition value of the instant real estate claimed by the Plaintiffs is KRW 1,265,00,000.
(2) The Defendant’s assertion is that of the instant real estate.