아파트 매매사례가액을 증여자산의 시가로 본 처분의 당부[국승]
National High Court Decision 2008west0863 (208.08)
The propriety of the disposition taken in the market price of the gift property
Although the comparative apartment and the number of floors are different, the same direction is the same as the residential apartment in the same complex, the standard market price is identical, and the sale price is deferred within three months from the date of donation, and the minimum price of similar transaction price can be seen as the normal market price reflecting objective exchange values by considering it as the market price.
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
Article 60 (Principles, etc. of Appraisal)
Article 49 (Principles, etc. of Appraisal)
1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The Defendant revoked each disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 37,936,330, which was imposed on the Plaintiffs on February 1, 2008.
1. Circumstances of the disposition;
A. On April 25, 2007, the plaintiffs received 1/4 shares from the two-line, the father of the plaintiffs, ○○○-dong 503 Dong 301 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") from each of 1/4 shares among ○○-dong 503 Dong 301 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 26, 2007.
B. On July 24, 2007, the Plaintiffs new and paid KRW 172,250,000 each gift tax on the ground that the standard market price of the apartment of this case was KRW 1/4 of the standard market price of the apartment of this case as KRW 689,00,000 as the value of each donated property was the value of each donated property.
C. As a result of investigating the sales cases of nearby apartment before and after the donation date of the apartment in this case, the defendant confirmed that the size and direction of the apartment in the same complex as the apartment in this case were the same seven-dong 209 (hereinafter "the comparative apartment in this case") on February 6, 2007 and confirmed that the sales price of the comparative apartment in this case was 1,375,000,000 won as the market price of the apartment in this case and notified the plaintiffs of each gift tax of 38,379,90 won as to the donation of the apartment in this case on February 1, 2008 (hereinafter "disposition in this case").
D. On February 28, 2008, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on February 28, 2008. However, on July 8, 2008, the Tax Tribunal corrected the amount of tax reduced or exempted only a part of the additional payment for arrears, and decided to dismiss the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim.
E. On August 25, 2008, according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal on August 25, 2008, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiffs as KRW 37,936,330 of each gift tax by reducing KRW 443,655, respectively.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence l through 5, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including above numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
In light of the fact that the standard market price announced on April 30, 2007 of the comparative apartment is higher than the apartment of this case and is more favorable conditions in the formation of the price, the transaction price of the comparative apartment of this case cannot be deemed the market price of the apartment of this case as the donated property stipulated in Article 60(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Therefore, the disposition of this case where the transaction price of the comparative apartment of this case is the value of the donated apartment of this case as the value of the donated apartment of this case is unlawful.
(b) Related statutes;
Article 60 (Principles, etc. of Appraisal)
Article 49 (Principles, etc. of Appraisal)
C. Determination
In full view of the purport of each statement in Eul's evidence Nos. 5 through 9, the comparison apartment of this case is identical to the size and direction of the apartment of this case and the standard market price (689,000,000,000, which was publicly announced on April 28, 2006) at the time of donation of the apartment of this case at the time of the apartment of this case. 3 Dong 1201, which is an apartment of the same area located in the same Dong as the apartment of this case, was sold in the amount of KRW 1,45,00,000 on February 8, 2007, and from January 1, 2007 to July 2007, the sales price of the same area located in the same complex as the apartment of this case, which was provided by the ○ Bank, from January 2007 to July 20, 2007.
In light of the following, the comparative apartment and the apartment of this case are different in the same direction, but the area and standard market price of the apartment in the same complex are identical, and the sale was made within three months from the donation date of the apartment of this case, and there is no sudden change in the price at the time of the sale of the comparative apartment at the time of the sale of the above apartment, among similar transaction prices, the sale of the comparative apartment of this case was made within three months from the donation date of the apartment of this case, and the sale price of the same apartment of this case was made within three months from the donation date of the apartment of this case, and the sale price of the same apartment of this case is considered to be a normal transaction amount reflecting objective exchange values. Thus, the defendant's disposal of this case by considering the sale price of the comparative apartment of this case as the market price of the apartment of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground of the illegality of the disposition of this case is dismissed in all of its grounds.