Article 95 (Transfer Income Amount under the former Income Tax Act)

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

A. On December 31, 1966, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 481.7 square meters of the site of ○○○○-dong, Seoul, ○○○-6 site (hereinafter “instant land”) on April 1, 2004, and transferred the transfer value to Nonparty Kim Tae and Dok-do on April 1, 2004, and on June 30, 2004, the transfer value was KRW 1.38 billion based on the actual transaction value, and the acquisition value was KRW 497 million, which was KRW 171,427,690. Accordingly, the Plaintiff voluntarily paid the transfer income tax on June 30, 2004.

B. After that, the Defendant confirmed that the transfer value of the instant land was 1.8 billion won, and notified the Plaintiff of the pre-announcement of taxation that the transfer income tax corresponding to the year 2004 should be imposed on the Plaintiff on May 17, 2005, and the Plaintiff received the notification on May 25, 2005. On May 30, 2005, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer margin of the instant land as the standard market price, and filed a final return on the transfer income tax base and voluntarily paid the transfer income tax of 14,611,270 won.

C. However, without recognizing the Plaintiff’s final return on the tax base of transfer income as of May 30, 2005, the Defendant issued a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income pursuant to Articles 96(1)6 and 97(1)1(a) of the former Income Tax Act; however, although the return on the tax base of transfer income was made according to the actual transaction value under Article 96(1)6 and Article 97(1)1(a) of the former Income Tax Act, the transfer value is different from the fact and the transfer value confirmed under the proviso of Article 114(4) of the former Income Tax Act can be corrected by using the transfer value as the transfer value confirmed under the proviso of Article 114(4) of the former Income Tax Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Even if the Plaintiff made a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income on the land of this case based on the actual transaction price, at any time until the final return is made, a final return on the tax base of transfer income may be made based on the standard market price, and accordingly, so long as the final return on the tax base of transfer income is made based on the standard market price, it cannot be deemed as the case where the return is made based on the actual transaction price under Article 96 (1) 6 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837, Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply), and it does not constitute a case where the transfer margin should be calculated based on the standard market price. Accordingly, the Defendant’s disposition of this case,

(b) Related statutes;

Article 94 (Scope of Transfer Income Tax of the Gu)

Article 95 (Transfer Income Amount under the former Income Tax Act)

Article 96 (Value of Transfer)

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses in Transfer Income Tax of the Gu)

C. Determination

(1) According to the former Income Tax Act, gains from the transfer of land shall be calculated on the basis of the standard market price. However, in exceptional cases such as where the transferor files a return on the basis of the actual transaction price along with evidential documents by the due date of the final return, the transfer margin shall be calculated on the basis of the actual transaction price (main sentence and proviso of Article 96(1)6 of the former Income Tax Act, and Article 97(1)1 (a) of the former Income Tax Act). If there is any omission or error in the details of the preliminary or final return on the tax base of transfer income, the tax office may rectify the transfer margin and the tax amount. In this case, the transfer margin shall be governed by Articles 96 and 97 of the former Income Tax Act in accordance with Articles 96(1)6 and 97(1)1 (a) of the former Income Tax Act, but if the transferor files a return on the basis of the actual transaction price by the due date of the final return along with evidential documents, and the tax office verifies

(2) According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income of the instant land based on the actual transaction price, along with evidentiary documents pursuant to Articles 96(1)6 and 97(1)1(a) of the former Income Tax Act, was confirmed the actual transaction price. However, the transfer income tax is subject to the principle of fixed-term taxation, and the tax base and tax amount are determined by comprehensively calculating the total amount of transfer income generated during the pertinent taxable period and filing a comprehensive return. Even if the preliminary return was filed, the transfer income tax becomes final and conclusive by calculating the tax base and tax amount and filing a comprehensive return. The disposal of the Plaintiff’s tax base and tax amount should be deemed to be unlawful by the Defendant’s final return based on the premise that the tax base and tax amount should be determined based on the standard market price determined by the final return and the final return should also be deemed to have become final and conclusive within 206.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is accepted for reasons.