2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

It is so decided as per Disposition.

A. On July 15, 2004, the Plaintiff, the husband of A, donated 29-3, Seoul ○○○-gu, 05-3 (○○○-dong 975-40), 401, 66.5 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant house”) of ground building 401, 66.5 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant house”). On January 28, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred the instant house to the Defendant on April 22, 2010, and filed a preliminary return on transfer income tax with the transfer value of the instant house at KRW 375,000,000, and the acquisition value at KRW 303,080,000.

B. On December 8, 2011, the Defendant, who donated the instant housing, determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 59,208,670 (including additional tax for negligent return 3,606,562, additional tax for negligent payment 7,490,913) for the capital gains tax of December 8, 2010 reverted to the owner of the instant housing, by deeming that the acquisition value of the instant housing was KRW 60,000,000,000 on the written contract for construction works prepared between AAA and the owner of the instant housing as the contractor. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the foregoing disposition on March 6, 2012. However, on April 24, 2012, the Defendant, ex officio, filed an objection against the said disposition, with the acquisition value of the instant housing as KRW 118,928,782,00,09 (additional tax for negligent return 2,460,280,000,000).

C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 24, 2012 regarding the instant disposition, but was dismissed on October 30, 2010.

Facts without any dispute, Gap 3 evidence, Eul 1, Eul 2-1, and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The instant house should be calculated based on the acquisition value of KRW 210,00,000, which is the assessed value retroactively appraised at the market price at the time of donation with the donated property. Accordingly, the transfer income tax amount to be paid by the Plaintiff is KRW 20,480,530.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

(a) Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Determination

In imposing transfer income tax on the transfer of property donated under the main sentence of Article 97(1)1 (a) of the Income Tax Act, the main sentence of Article 163(9) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 60(1) and (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, even if the tax authority assessed the acquisition value of the relevant property as a publicly assessed individual land price and assessed it on the ground that it is difficult to assess the market price at the time of donation of the relevant property, if the market price at the time of donation of the relevant property is verified by the time of closing of the fact-finding lawsuit, the determination of whether the amount of the relevant taxation exceeds the reasonable tax amount after calculating the reasonable transfer margin and the reasonable tax amount based on the market price is made. The "market price" means, in principle, an objective exchange price formed by a normal transaction, but it is a concept including the value assessed by an objective and reasonable method, so if there is no exchange price through such a retroactive appraisal, the appraisal price at the reliable appraisal institution may be seen as the "market price", and even if so determined (see, etc.).

This legal doctrine is applied to this case. According to the appraiser BB's appraisal result, which appears to be evaluated by objective and reasonable methods, taking into account the price fluctuation rate and the location, shape, environment, and current use of the instant housing, the market price of the instant housing as of July 14, 2004, which was around the date of donation, shall be 210,000,000 won. In this case, the legitimate amount of capital gains tax to be paid by the Plaintiff for the transfer of the instant housing is 20,480,530 won as indicated in the calculation statement.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the part exceeding KRW 20,480,530 among the disposition of this case should be revoked illegally, and the plaintiff's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified.