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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 259,539,820 (including additional tax) in 2016 against the Plaintiffs on October 1, 2017 shall be revoked.

A. The plaintiffs, as co-owners of the 15,50,000,000,000,000 won for land and 2,060.05 square meters for the 5th floor above the OO-dong OO-dong 157-4 and 488.8 square meters for the 5th floor above (hereinafter referred to as the "the building in this case", and the land in this case and the building in this case are combined with the building in this case), operated a lease business in the real estate in this case as from January 3, 1995." (b) On January 5, 2016, the plaintiffs completed the sale transfer registration of the real estate in this case to EE-Limited Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "EEE") on the 15,500,000,000,000 won for the 90,000,000 won for the 201,000 won after the conclusion of the sale contract.

C. After the transfer of the instant real estate, the Plaintiffs reported capital gains tax and value-added tax on the amount pursuant to the instant sales contract to the Defendant. The Defendant, among the transfer value of the instant real estate, deemed that the transfer value of the instant real estate falls under “cases where the distinction between the value of land and the value of buildings is unclear” under the proviso of Article 29(9) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 15223, Dec. 19, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply), and thus, the transfer value of the instant real estate is calculated as KRW 2,812,60,000 by calculating the sale value of the instant real estate as the standard market price. Accordingly, on October 1, 2017, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiffs, who are joint taxpayers under Article 25(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, of KRW 1,259,539,820 (including additional tax) for each of the instant dispositions (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”).

D. On December 14, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on each of the instant dispositions, but all of the appeals were dismissed on March 28, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 9 through 11, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

For the following reasons, each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful.

1) The provisions of Article 100 (3) of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied to value-added tax, and even under the proviso of Article 29 (9) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, the plaintiffs and EE set the purchase price of the building of this case at KRW 900,00,000 in the sales contract of this case, and there exist cases where the building price itself is not recognized in the actual transaction of the building of this case as a old-age building newly constructed on December 7, 1995. The plaintiffs' profits under the sales contract of this case can be early refund of value-added tax from the same business entity under the Value-Added Tax Act even if the purchase price of the building of this case is adjusted, and there is no reason to report the lowering of the price of the building of this case, and since the plaintiffs calculated the sale price of the building of this case based on the book value, it cannot be deemed that the sale price of the building of this case is unclear.

2) In addition, Article 20 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall respect corporate accounting standards, etc. a tax official continues to apply to the taxpayer. However, the Plaintiffs, based on the book value, had the depreciation costs of the instant building deducted as necessary expenses, so each of the instant dispositions violates the principle of trust protection

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The main contents of the instant sales contract are as follows.

(Omission of List)

2) The details of the change in ownership of the instant real estate are as follows.

A) The instant land

(Omission of List)

B) The instant building

(Omission of List)

3) The standard market price, etc. of the instant real estate is as follows.

(Omission of List)

4) Book value, etc. of the instant real estate is as follows.

(Omission of List)

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 29(9) of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that where a business entity supplies land and a building or structure fixed on such land together, the actual transaction value of the building or structure shall be the value: Provided, That where the distinction between the value of land and the value of the building or structure is unclear among the actual transaction value, the amount calculated as prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be the value of supply. Article 64 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27472, Aug. 31, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that where the distinction between the value of land and the value of the building or structure among the actual transaction value under Article 29(9) of the Act is unclear, the amount calculated according to the classification of each of the following subparagraphs shall be the value of supply. The main sentence of subparagraph 1 provides that where both the standard market value of land and the building, etc. under Article 99 of the Income Tax Act (hereafter referred to as the "standard market value" in this Article), the amount calculated in proportion

Meanwhile, Article 29 (9) of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that "where the distinction between the value of land and the value of buildings is unclear" means not only the case where land and buildings are transferred without distinction, but also the case where the value of land and the value of buildings are clearly distinguishable from the value of land and buildings under a contract, it shall be interpreted that such distinction is not based on the genuine agreement between the parties, or where it is not deemed a reasonable distinction from the ordinary transaction practices.

2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the facts of recognition, the entries in Gap's evidence Nos. 13 through 17 and the purport of the entire pleadings, since the sale price of the instant land and the building of this case pursuant to the instant sales contract cannot be deemed to be a reasonable distinction from ordinary transaction practices, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(1) Article 100(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that the value of land and buildings, etc. shall be calculated in accordance with Presidential Decree in consideration of the standard market price, etc. at the time of acquisition or transfer, in cases where the distinction between the value of land and buildings, etc. is unclear with the same purport as Article 29(9) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 100(3) provides that "where the value of land and buildings, etc. separated from the value of land and buildings, etc. under the same paragraph differs from that calculated in accordance with the same paragraph at the time of acquisition or transfer, it shall be deemed that the distinction between the value of land and buildings, etc. is unclear." Meanwhile, Article 29(9) of the former Value-Added Tax Act does not exist, and thus, in order to recognize that the division of

② The sales price of the instant land under the instant sales contract is KRW 15.5 billion (94.51%). The sales price of the instant building is only KRW 90.49% (5.49%). In the instant building, multiple tenants, such as FF 1574, leased the instant building in total of KRW 469.3 million, and KRW 1,91.30,000,000 for monthly rent.

③ The standard market price of the instant land, namely, the publicly assessed individual land price, is approximately KRW 6.14 billion. The land price under the instant sales contract is KRW 1.5 billion, and even though the standard market price of the instant building is approximately KRW 1.277,189,00,000, the price of the building under the instant sales contract is merely KRW 90,000,000,000,000

④ In light of the book value of the instant real estate as of December 31, 2015, the instant land as of December 31, 2015 is approximately KRW 2.74,394,00 (the component ratio is KRW 74.69%); the instant building is KRW 92,9740,000 (the component ratio is KRW 25.31%). As seen earlier, there is a big difference between the sale price of the land according to the instant sales contract and KRW 1.55 billion, and the sale price of the building is KRW 90,000 and the value of the land.

⑤ 원고들은 이 사건 건물은 1995. 12. 7. 신축된 노후건물로 그 가치가 크지 않고, 원고들이나 EEE이 이 사건 건물의 가격을 낮추어 신고할 이유도 없으며, 원고들은 장부가액에 기초하여 이 사건 건물의 매매가격을 산정하였으므로 실지거래가액 중 토지의 가액과 건물 등의 가액 구분이 불분명한 경우에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다는 취지로 주장한다. 그러나 ㉠ 원고들이 제출한 사실확인서 등만으로는 이 사건 건물의 노후화 등으로 인하여 이 사건 건물의 가치가 매매가격의 약 5.5%에 불과하다고 단정하기 어려운 점, ㉡ 오히려 이 사건 건물에는 앞서 본 바와 같이 다수의 임차인이 존재하고 있었을 뿐만 아니라, EEE이 이 사건 부동산을 양수한 이후 이 사건 건물을 철거하였다는 자료 등도 제출된 바 없는 점, ㉢ 부가가치세법상 사업자는 공급가액에 기초한 부가가치세를 공급받는 자에게 거래징수한 후(구 부가가치세법 제31조 등 참조) 매출세액에서 매입세액을 공제하여 부가가치세를 납부하거나 환급받는데(구 부가가치세법 제37조, 제38조 참조), 토지와 건물에 관하여 부가가치세를 포함한 전체적인 매매대금이 고정되어 있는 경우 부가가치세 과세대상인 건물의 가액이 높을수록 매도인이 실질적으로 부담하여야 할 부가가치세가 많아질 뿐만 아니라 이 사건 매매계약에서는 건물에 대한 부가가치세는 매수인인 EEE이 부담하나(제3조 제2호), 건물 매매 금액의 변동 시에는 매매금액이 조정된다고 기재되어 있어(제3조 제1호), 건물의 가액과 관계없이 EEE이 부가가치세를 모두 부담한다기 보다는 전체적인 부동산의 매매가격이 정하여진 계약으로 볼 여지도 있는 점, ㉣ 이 사건 부동산에 관한 중개대상물 확인・설명서(갑 제13호증)에 따르면 이 사건 건물의 수도, 전기, 가스, 소방, 난방, 승강기, 배수, 벽면 누수 여부 등이 모두 정상이고, 벽면에 균열이 있다는 취지로 기재되어 있기는 하나 이는 5층 계단 내벽으로 이 사건 건물의 이용에 큰 지장은 주는 것으로 보기 어려운 점, ㉤ 비록 원고들이 장부가액에 기초하여 이 사건 매매계약상 건물의 가격을 산출하였다고 하더라도 장부가액에서 차지하는 토지와 건물의 비율, 이 사건 토지와 건물의 기준시가와 이 사건 매매계약상 가격의 차이 등에 비추어 이 사건 매매계약상 가액 구분은 합리적인 가액 구분이라고 보기 어려운 점 등에 비추어 보면 원고들의 위 주장은 받아들이기 어렵다.

3) Furthermore, while the plaintiffs asserts that each of the dispositions of this case is contrary to the principle of trust protection, in general, the tax authorities should state public opinion that is the subject of trust in the tax law relations, first, the tax authorities should express the public opinion that is the subject of taxpayer's trust, second, there should be no reason attributable to the taxpayer for the taxpayer to believe that the expression of opinion by the tax authorities is justifiable, third, the taxpayer must trust the name of the opinion and act what is in trust, and fourth, the tax authorities should make a disposition against the above list against the above list, thereby infringing the taxpayer's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da18401, May 26, 2006). Since the fact that the depreciation of the building of this case was done by the plaintiffs when the tax authorities reported global income tax, etc., this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.