2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 10% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 127,572,216 against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2017 exceeds KRW 110,766,626 of capital gains tax of KRW 127,572,216, and the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 3,263,671, which exceeds KRW 2,687,306, respectively, shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 31, 2005 with respect to 1,817 square meters (hereinafter “the land before the instant partition”), which was owned by Ansan-dong, Seoul, OOdong 316,00,000 (hereinafter “the land before the instant partition”).

B. Since July 18, 2007, the land before the instant division was divided into 1,636 square meters prior to the same 316 square meters prior to the same 316 square meters, and 181 square meters prior to the same 316-3 square meters prior to the same 316-3 square meters, and on August 21, 2007, the 1,636 square meters prior to the same 316-4 square meters prior to the same 316-4 square meters prior to the same 316-4 square meters prior to the 316-5 square meters prior to the 316-5 square meters prior to the 316-62 square meters prior to the said 316-6 square meters prior to the said 316-3 square meters prior to the said 316-3 square meters prior to the said 16-16-3 square meters prior to the said 316-16-3 square meters prior to the said 2016-16-207 square meters prior the said 20.

C. On October 18, 2016, the instant land was expropriated into the OO Corporation on November 22, 2016, while the instant land was expropriated on November 22, 2016. On November 28, 2016, the Plaintiff reported and paid capital gains tax of KRW 45,307,670, special agricultural and fishery villages tax of KRW 1,59,59,000,09,000, calculated by dividing the acquisition value of the land before the instant partition (2,198,00,000) by the ratio of the area of each of the instant land to the area of the instant land.

D. After conducting a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff from April 13, 2017 to June 11, 2017, the Defendant: (a) denied the acquisition value reported by the Plaintiff on the ground that the sales contract (proof No. 2) submitted by the Plaintiff as evidentiary data on the acquisition value of the land before subdivision at the time of filing the said report on capital gains tax; and (b) deemed the real acquisition value of the land before subdivision at KRW 790,00,000, and deemed the real acquisition value of the land before subdivision at KRW 34,954,643 divided in proportion to the size of each land of this case as the acquisition value of each land of this case; and (c) re-determined the amount of KRW 127,572,216 (including additional taxes) and the special rural development tax for rural development for the Plaintiff in August 1, 2017 as the acquisition value of each land of this case (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal on September 28, 2017. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 5, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not find a sales contract for the acquisition of the land before the instant partition until the time the transfer income tax on the transfer of each of the instant lands was reported. However, in the course of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff discovered a sales contract for the land before the instant partition, which was submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of filing a report on the transfer income tax on each of the lands of OOdong 316-4, 5, and 6, to the Defendant on December 2, 2004. According to the sales contract of this case, the actual acquisition value of the land before the instant partition was 960,000,000, and the disposition of this case on the premise that the actual acquisition value of the land before the instant partition is 790,000,000,000.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On November 28, 2016, when the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax on the transfer of each of the instant lands to the Defendant, the Plaintiff submitted a sales contract (Evidence No. 2) as of December 15, 2004 with evidentiary data on the acquisition value of each of the instant lands before the subdivision. The said sales contract is written in the form of KRW 2,198,00,000, the purchase price of the instant lands before the subdivision. On June 7, 2017, the Plaintiff was under a tax investigation. The Plaintiff prepared and submitted a written confirmation that “the Defendant is not a real transaction contract.”

2) On December 2, 2004, the Plaintiff and Ansan drafted the instant sales contract (Evidence A7) with respect to the land before the instant partition as follows.

○ Sales Amount: 960,000,000 won

○ Contract deposit: 150,000,000 won payment at the time of a contract

○ part payments: 250,000,000 won January 20, 2005

○ Balance: 560,000,000 won on March 31, 2005

○ Loans: 120,000,000 monthly rent (500,000 monthly rent)

* Special Terms and Conditions : approximately KRW 500,000,000 for the last remainder shall be the O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong 00,000 (hereinafter referred to as the "O-dong unit apartment of this case") and KRW 120,000,000 (monthly rent of KRW 500,000) shall be known to the buyer and settled at the time of the balance. The amount of KRW 150,00,000 shall be settled at the time of the remainder after cancellation and cancellation of the balance. The stamp contract shall be 360,000,000,000.

3) On April 27, 2005, Ansan reported the transfer income tax at KRW 345,230,000, the standard market price with respect to the transfer of the land before the division of this case.

4) In addition, around May 31, 2005, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax of KRW 430,000 with respect to the transfer of the instant subdivision apartment at KRW 430,00,000, and submitted the exchange contract on March 31, 2005 with the following contents.

○ Exchange Articles: the subdivision apartment of this case, and the land before the subdivision of this case

○ Exchange Amount: 430,000,000 won

○ Amount for settlement of deposit: 160,000,000 won for security deposit

* Special Agreement: 430,000,000 won for both trade and exchange shall be 160,000,000 won for deposit money for lease on a deposit basis to △△△ (the plaintiff).

5) Meanwhile, according to the standard market price of the subdivision apartment of this case in 2004 is 348,500,000 won, and according to the OO bank real estate market price data, among OOdong OO apartment of this case around December 2004, the average sales price of the apartment of this case in which the size of the subdivision apartment of this case is identical is 450,000,000 won, the upper average sales price is 520,000,000 won, and the average sale price is 485,00,000,000 won.

6) The Plaintiff withdrawn the following money from the Obank account under the name of the Plaintiff or the business entity (O) operated by the Plaintiff as a check.

No.

Date

Amount (won)

Non-appeal (Plaintiff’s assertion)

1

December 2, 2004

150,000,000

Claim for payment as down payment

2

January 7, 2005

100,000,000

The assertion that the intermediate payment is made (10,000,000 won is paid at the request of △△△△ for the demand of △△△△, but the remainder of 150,000,000 won is paid later than the intermediate payment payment date under the instant sales contract instead of the intermediate payment payment payment date under the instant sales contract).

3

January 26, 2005

150,000,000

4

March 31, 2005

20,000,000

60,000,000 won is part of the remainder, and 120,000,000 won was paid as the lease deposit of the instant subdivision apartment as part of the remainder, and the remainder was paid as incidental expenses, such as the acquisition and registration tax of the land before the instant subdivision and the fees for licensed real estate agents.

Total

620,000,000

The assertion that the total amount of KRW 460,000,000 was paid as the purchase price, KRW 120,000,000 respectively as the lease deposit.

No.

Date

Amount (won)

1

December 3, 2005

80,000,000

2

January 27, 2005

10,000,000

3

April 1, 2005

170,000,000

Total

360,000,000

7) On the other hand, it is confirmed that the following money has been deposited into the accounts of the △△△ Bank in the name of Ansan-si, the O bank account, the △△△ Bank account, and the spouse of Ansan-si.

8) The Defendant assessed the value of the instant divided apartment at KRW 430,00,000,000, which was actually reported by the Plaintiff at the time of reporting transfer income tax on the transfer of the instant divided apartment, and recognized only the sum of KRW 360,00,000, which was confirmed to have been deposited into the account of △△△△△△ as alleged in paragraph (6) of the purchase price payment, as alleged in paragraph (7) of the Plaintiff, as the actual payment amount, and disposed of the instant disposition on the premise that the actual acquisition value of the land before the instant division is KRW 790,00,000.

9) Meanwhile, on December 2, 2004, Ansan appeared as a witness and concluded a sales contract for the land of this case with the Plaintiff on December 2, 2004, and the contract entered into at the time of the instant sales contract (Evidence 7 of this case). The purchase price is 960,000,000 won. The apartment of this case is assessed as 50,000,000 won as the market price, and 460,000,000 won was paid from the Plaintiff’s purchase price as the check on December 2, 2004. The witness received 150,000,000 won as 0,000 won as the purchase price, and 00,000 won as the remaining 0,000 won as the purchase price. The witness received 0,000,000 won as the remaining 0,000 won as the purchase price, and 30,005,005,00 won as the remaining 05,00.

10) On October 31, 2007, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant submitted the instant sales contract as evidence at the time of filing a transfer income tax on the land of OOdong 316-4, 5, and 6. However, it is not confirmed whether or not the Plaintiff submitted it. However, at the time, KRW 10,566,868, which the Plaintiff reported as the acquisition value of each of the above lands, is 960,000 won for the acquisition value of each of the above lands, and is apportioned proportionally in proportion to the size of each of the above lands (=960,000,000 x 20/1,817 square meters).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the result of this court's order to submit financial transaction information to the Obank, the witness's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) According to the aforementioned relevant statutes, the acquisition value in calculating gains from the transfer of real estate is, in principle, the actual transaction value incurred in acquiring real estate. However, in cases where there is no account book, sales contract, receipt, or other documentary evidence necessary to verify the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition, or where it is impossible to recognize or confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of the relevant asset due to account books or other documentary evidence, such as where there is no material error in the book or other documentary evidence, only

Meanwhile, in a case where a taxpayer submitted a sales contract concerning the acquisition of real estate as a document to prove the actual transaction price, a transaction confirmation and a certificate of personal seal impression, etc., the tax authority shall calculate gains on transfer based on the actual transaction price under the sales contract, barring special circumstances, such as the transaction contract, etc. was prepared differently from the actual transaction price. In such a case, the tax authority shall prove that such special circumstances exist (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu282, Nov. 24, 1992; 95Nu3183, Jun. 25, 1996; 200Du6459, May 28, 2002).

2) In the instant case, although the Plaintiff submitted a false sales contract with the acquisition value of the land prior to the instant subdivision as stated in the first report of transfer income tax on the transfer of each of the instant land at the time of the said report, it was acknowledged as follows: (a) in the course of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff erred and submitted the instant sales contract; (b) the Plaintiff testified to the effect that the Plaintiff was to transfer the land prior to the instant subdivision at KRW 960,000,000, which was the purchase price under the instant sales contract; and (c) as long as the Defendant did not prove special circumstances, such as that the purchase price under the instant sales contract was prepared differently from the actual purchase price, the actual transaction price at the time of the acquisition of the land prior to the instant subdivision shall be recognized as KRW 960,00,000, which was stated in the instant sales contract.

In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to see that the sales contract of this case was made by falsity, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

A) The date on which the sales contract of this case was prepared is "the date on December 2, 2004", while the grounds for registration of transfer of ownership of each land of this case are "exchange on March 31, 2005". However, the mere fact that there is a little difference between the contract date entered in the sales contract and the registration date entered in the register, it cannot be readily concluded that the sale price entered in the sales contract is false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du1130, Jun. 29, 2001; 200Nu1357, Dec. 26, 2000; 2001Du2348, Jul. 27, 2001; 200Nu4257, Feb. 20, 2001).

B) Meanwhile, with respect to the land before the division of this case, the Plaintiff and Ansan recognized that part of the purchase price was the apartment of this case, and that part of the purchase price was traded by cash payment itself. The Defendant’s exchange contract (Evidence No. 1) on March 31, 2005, which was cited by the Defendant, was prepared in the form of a simple exchange, and is more likely to be false (According to the above contract, the acquisition price of the land before the division of this case is KRW 430,000,000, and the part received in cash in excess of the above amount is not clearly explained among the Plaintiff and Ansan, and the acquisition price of the land before the division of this case is entirely explained among the Plaintiff and Ansan). It does not conform to the above contract.

C) In addition, around December 2004, the market price of the apartment of this case was difficult to increase to 500,000,000 won under the exchange contract of this case rather than the exchange price of 430,000,000 won under the above exchange contract. ① The Plaintiff’s account was withdrawn from the Plaintiff’s account on the contract date of this case as 150,000,000 won as a check, and then 80,000,000 won was deposited into the account in the name of △△△ on December 3, 205, and 200,000 won was 10,000 won as well as 30,000 won was deposited in the account of the witness’s account under the name of △△△△△△, which was 10,000,000 won before and after the payment date stipulated in the above exchange contract of this case, the Plaintiff’s remaining 20,000 won was deposited in the account of this case.

3) Therefore, the actual acquisition value of the land before the division of this case is KRW 960,00,00, and the legitimate amount of capital gains tax calculated by applying the acquisition value calculated by applying it proportionally calculated according to the ratio of the area of each land of this case shall be KRW 156,19,576, and special rural development tax shall be KRW 4,435,912. The Plaintiff sought partial revocation of a disposition, which deducts the amount of capital gains tax already reported, etc., from the remainder of increased or corrected disposition. Thus, upon deducting the amount of tax already reported from the above legitimate tax amount, the amount of capital gains tax shall be KRW 10,891,90 (= KRW 156,19,576 - KRW 45,307,670) and special rural development tax amount shall be KRW 2,836,822 (=4,435,912 - 1,59,090). Thus, the disposition of this case shall be unlawful within the above scope and shall be revoked.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.