2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's decision that the disposition of imposition of OOO(including additional tax) for the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2010 against the plaintiff on February 1, 2012 is revoked.

A. On April 10, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired an OO-Gu OB O-dong 1689-1 560.5 m26 m20 m20 m20 m20 m200 m200 m20 m200 m20 m200 m200 m200 for O-si O-dong O-dong 1689-1 m206 m26 m20 on the ground and 6 m26 m20 m20 (hereinafter referred to as “the above land and buildings”) from O-si O-dong O-dong 1689-7 m28 m28 m20 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”) on July 21, 2010.

B. On December 30, 2010, the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer income tax OOOO or OOOO on the transfer of the instant land as the transfer value OO or the conversion acquisition value.

C. However, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed that the Plaintiff acquired the first acquired real estate from the OOE as a result of a comprehensive audit conducted against the Defendant in 2001, and ordered the Plaintiff to correct and notify the transfer income tax on the Plaintiff. On February 1, 2012, the Defendant issued an order to correct and notify the transfer income tax OOE (including additional tax) with the real acquisition price of the instant land as the OOE as the OOE.

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on May 10, 2012, but was dismissed on July 20, 2012.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of evidence A2 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased the first acquired real estate from SongB in the OB, but at the request of SongB, terminated the contract entered as the purchase price as the OOOO on or around June 28, 2010, and the SongB died on or after June 28, 2010, and there is no contract, receipt, and other evidence to confirm the actual transaction price of the instant land, such as the destruction by the expiration of the storage period. Therefore, the conversion price should be recognized as the acquisition price.

In addition, ① OOO's initial acquisition value of real estate was much lower than the officially announced price, as well as the market price of other real estate in the vicinity at the time of acquisition, ② AOO's confirmation document (Evidence No. 3) prepared by the Plaintiff, which was the ground for recognition of the OO's original acquisition value, paid the down payment with the payment method of the purchase price of the OO's KRW 10 January 10, 200. The intermediate payment is the receipt of CCC's debts, OOO's debts, and OO's debts, and the remainder payment is indicated as the payment of the purchase price of OO's KRW 1.6%, but the down payment is very exceptional, since the maximum debt amount set by CO's initial acquisition value of the real estate is OO's KRW, the actual debt amount is presumed to be more than the standard market price of the OO's real estate in light of the fact that the Plaintiff paid the remainder of the 200 OO's liabilities and the confirmation document.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Article 97 (1) 1 (b) of the Income Tax Act provides that "Where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition" shall be the transaction example value, appraisal value or conversion value as determined by the Presidential Decree.

B. Although the sales contract for the first acquired real estate was not submitted with respect to the instant case, according to the content of the door-to-door (No. 2) prepared by SongB at the time of the tax investigation with respect to SongB conducted in 2001 by the Director of the Central District Tax Office, and the content of the confirmation document prepared by the Plaintiff (No. 3; hereinafter referred to as the “written confirmation”) and the transfer value of the real estate initially acquired by the transferor, the transferor, and the Plaintiff, the transferee, both of whom were the transferor and the transferee, confirmed that the transfer value of the real estate initially acquired was OO was the actual transaction value at the time of the initial acquisition of the real estate.

Notwithstanding the contents of the confirmation of this case, the plaintiff asserts that the acquisition value of the real estate originally acquired is not an OOO member. However, in the calculation of transfer margin, the actual transaction price, which is the basis for the calculation of transfer margin, refers to the actual transaction price, not the market price reflecting the objective exchange value, but the actual transaction price itself or the price for payment at the time of transaction. Thus, the acquisition value of the real estate originally acquired cannot be deemed an OO member, unlike the confirmation document prepared by the plaintiff merely because the actual transaction price is lower than the standard market price or the market price of neighboring buildings. (2) The confirmation document of this case cannot be deemed as false because the down payment amount of the down payment does not exceed 10% of the purchase price, and since there is a possibility that the debt may change due to other causes, such as partial repayment or late payment, etc., the mere fact of the plaintiff's assertion can not interfere with the credibility of the confirmation document of this case. (3) Furthermore, the statement of evidence No. 5-1 through 6 cannot be found to be different from the standard market price and the acquisition tax base.

C. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the acquisition price of the instant land should be based on the conversion price is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.