2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following facts are acknowledged according to each of Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 13, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, or there is no dispute between the parties.

A. The Plaintiff purchased a 3349 square meters large 365.3 square meters, Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-si, from the Non-party Pung-si, and acquired the registration of ownership transfer as of August 19, 1989, and sold it to Non-party Pung-si, and transferred it to the non-party Pung-si, and transferred it to the transfer on October 27, 1990 (hereinafter the transfer in this case).

B. Accordingly, on January 16, 1996, the Defendant calculated the transfer margin following the transfer of this case based on the standard market price, and imposed the transfer income tax of KRW 23,09,580, and the defense tax of KRW 4,619,910 on the Plaintiff.

2. Whether the instant taxation disposition is legitimate

A. Summary of the parties' arguments

(1) Won high

The Plaintiff reported the actual transaction price by submitting a sales contract for the acquisition and transfer to the employee in charge of the Defendant prior to determining the above tax amount. Thus, the instant taxation by calculating the transfer margin based on the standard market price is unlawful even though the Defendant should calculate the transfer margin based on the actual transaction price.

(2) Sheetion;

The Plaintiff did not report the actual transaction price to the Defendant with documentary evidence before the Defendant determines the above tax amount, and even if the Plaintiff reported such fact, the actual transaction price reported by the Plaintiff cannot be trusted. Therefore, the instant taxation disposition, which calculated capital gains based on the standard market price, did not err by misapprehending the principle.

B. Details and interpretation of the relevant statutes

According to Articles 23(4)1 and 45(1)1(a) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281, Dec. 31, 1990) and Article 170(4)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194, Dec. 31, 1990), real estate transfer margin shall be calculated based on the standard market price at the time of acquisition and transfer, but in principle, “where it is possible to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition or transfer” by documentary evidence submitted by the transferor, “where it is possible to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition or transfer, it shall be calculated on the basis of the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition or transfer. However, the purport of the revised provision of Article 16(4)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14860, Dec. 30, 199; Presidential Decree No. 2010, Mar. 3, 20198). 2>

Meanwhile, according to Article 8(2) of the Addenda of the current Enforcement Decree, the amended provisions of this case shall apply from the first determination of capital gains after the enforcement of the current Enforcement Decree (hereinafter “the transitional provisions of this case”). Notwithstanding the provisions of the mother Act amended by Act No. 5031 of Dec. 29, 1995 (Article 96(1) of the Income Tax Act), the amended provisions of the current Enforcement Decree shall apply from the first transfer after the enforcement of the mother Act and the Enforcement Decree (Article 8(1) of the Addenda of the amended provisions of the former Enforcement Decree and Article 8(1) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree, the amended provisions of this case shall be deemed to be a transitional provision providing that the retroactive application shall apply to the transfer before the enforcement date of the current Enforcement Decree, even if they are transferred before the enforcement date of the mother Act and the Enforcement Decree.

Therefore, even if the transfer was made before January 1, 1996, if the actual transaction price was reported to the head of the competent tax office with documentary evidence prior to the date of determination of the tax amount, and if the reported details are believed, the tax office should calculate the transfer margin based on the actual transaction price.

(c) Markets:

(1) Whether the Plaintiff reported the actual transaction price to the head of the competent tax office by keeping evidential documents prior to the date of determination of tax amount

If Gap evidence No. 9-2 and Gap evidence No. 14 collected the whole purport of the pleading, the plaintiff received a notice from the defendant that the transfer of this case would be subject to a transfer income tax (Evidence No. 14) and submitted a sales contract (Evidence No. 4) and a sales contract (Evidence No. 1) on the acquisition and transfer of the same details as the taxation disposition of this case on January 1, 1996, prior to the date of the taxation disposition of this case, and submitted a sales contract (Evidence No. 14) to the public official belonging to the defendant, and the actual acquisition value is 77,250,000 won (the plaintiff's share among the purchase price No. 4, 154,500,000 won as stated in the evidence No. 4), and the actual transfer value is 88,400,000 won (the plaintiff's share equivalent to the purchase price No. 176,800,000 won as stated in the evidence No. 1).1.

According to the above facts, if the plaintiff submitted a sales contract for acquisition and transfer to the public official in charge before the date of determination of the amount of tax, even though the plaintiff did not receive the return in a fixed manner, it shall be deemed that it constitutes a case of reporting the actual transaction price to the defendant

(2) As to the credibility of the Plaintiff’s report

In order to calculate gains on transfer based on the actual transaction value, the actual acquisition value and actual transfer value reported by the transferor must be confirmed by the documentary evidence submitted by the transferor (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu13807, May 10, 196). Therefore, first, we examine the credibility of the transfer value reported by the Plaintiff.

As evidence consistent with the details of the Plaintiff’s report, the seal of approval (Evidence 1) and the certificate of transaction under the above name of Chuncheon (Evidence 2) submitted by the transferee at the time of the registration of transfer of ownership. However, if the above name-type 1, 2, 3, 6, 7% of the standard market price, the above value of transfer reported by the Plaintiff was merely about 67% of the whole purport of the oral argument in each of the statements Nos. 2-2, 2, 2- 3, 6, and 7, and the above name-type 30,50,000 won is different from the above value of transfer reported by the Plaintiff to the public official belonging to the Defendant, who confirmed the actual transaction price around June 13, 1997 (if so calculated, the value of transfer of the Plaintiff’s share shall be KRW 138,000,000,000 per reputation). In light of the above facts, the above evidence is difficult to believe in light of the above facts.

Therefore, since the transfer of this case constitutes a case where the transfer value reported by the Plaintiff cannot be confirmed by documentary evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it shall be deemed that the transfer value reported by the Plaintiff cannot be calculated based on the actual transaction value without examining whether the acquisition value reported by the Plaintiff is reliable or not.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the instant taxation disposition that calculated capital gains based on the standard market price is lawful. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation on the ground that the instant taxation disposition is unlawful is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing Plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim-soo (Presiding Judge)