양도소득세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 25, 1999, the Plaintiff acquired land B and a factory building on its ground (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) by inheritance due to the death of the Plaintiff’s spouse C.
On December 27, 199, the Plaintiff calculated each of the instant real estate as a supplementary assessment method (standard market price) at the time of filing an inheritance tax return, and reported the appraised value to KRW 533,631,180.
B. Meanwhile, on September 17, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred each of the instant real estate to the Korea National Housing Corporation by expropriation of KRW 2,761,57,450, but did not report the transfer income tax.
C. As to the Plaintiff’s transfer of each of the instant real estate, the Defendant: (a) applied the transfer value to KRW 2,761,57,450, which is the actual transaction value; and (b) applied the acquisition value to KRW 533,631,180, which is the actual transaction value; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of KRW 735,215,452, which reverts to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2012.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”)
D. On July 29, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the National Tax Service on July 29, 2013, but was dismissed on September 16, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number for additional evidence), the whole purport of oral argument
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the inherited property inherited from the deceased C, and since it is reasonable to view the acquisition value as the maximum amount of debt (1,739,00,000 won) of the right to collateral security in calculating the transfer income tax on each of the instant real property, the Defendant considered the acquisition value as the standard market price (53,631,180 won). The Defendant’s disposition of this case must be revoked in an unlawful and unjust manner.
(b)be as indicated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
C. The judgment is based on Article 97 of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009), Article 97 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and December 31, 2009.