실지로 취득하였다는 가액에 대한 입증책임은 원고에게 있고 취득가액이 불분명한 경우 환산가액에 의한 취득가액은 적법함[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-7887 ( October 11, 2018)
Cho-2017-west-3096 (2017.08)
The burden of proof for the value that the plaintiff has acquired is legitimate if the acquisition value is unclear, and the acquisition value based on the conversion value is legitimate.
In the event that the plaintiff has the burden of proof on the actual acquisition value and the acquisition value is unclear, the acquisition value according to the conversion value pursuant to Article 97 (1) 1 (b) of the Income Tax Act is legitimate.
Article 97 (2) of the Income Tax Act
2018Nu71436 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
Category ○ ○
○ Head of tax office
April 4, 2019
April 25, 2019
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 1,408,296,770 (including additional tax) that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on March 2, 2017 shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows, with the exception of adding the following table below to 10 lines 3 pages 5 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part "converted value" with the term "in the calculation amount and actual transaction value calculated as follows". This part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
The reasoning for this part of this Court shall be the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
this shall be quoted.
○ 10 6 and 7 lines “The ○○○’s dissenting statement exists” added to the following phrase “(it is difficult to believe that the evidence No. 24 to this effect is written against it).”
Then, the phrase “(this is the same even if the statement in Gap evidence No. 23 is neglectd)” is added to the phrase “10 lines.”
3. Conclusion
Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.