실지거래가액을 확인할 수 없는 경우에는 취득가액을 기준시가 등으로 추계조사 하여 결정할 수 있음[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 2017Gudan56974 ( April 24, 2018)
If it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction price, the acquisition price may be determined by the estimation investigation based on the standard market price, etc.
(1) Where it is impossible to recognize or confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of the relevant asset, the transfer margin of land may be determined or revised by applying the acquisition value in sequence of transaction example, appraisal value, conversion value, and standard market price in order pursuant to Article 176-2 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.
Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act Article 176-2 (Estimated Decision and Revision)
2018Nu45918 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
IsaA
BB Director of the Tax Office
April 24, 2018
July 17, 2018
August 21, 2018
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on November 1, 2016 by the Defendant shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for the judgment of the court in this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts to be used or added. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
○ The judgment of the first instance court did not 5 1 to 2 ......... ...... .................
The written evidence Nos. 6 and 7 (including paper numbers) alone is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
○ At the 5th bottom of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:
In addition, 220,00,000 won, which the Plaintiff asserted that he paid to KimA or leA, is not a large amount of money at the time of 1998, and the Plaintiff can prove that the Plaintiff paid the above purchase price by determining how the leapA or leA used it. However, the Plaintiff did not submit any data.
○ The following shall be added at the 6th day below the judgment of the first instance court:
As a result of the appraiser KimB's appraisal of the first instance court, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant sales contract was drafted at the time of October 1998 when the Plaintiff purchased the forest of this case. According to the appraiser KimB's appraisal of the first instance court, it is recognized that the instant sales contract was not withdrawn as far as it is deemed that the instant sales contract was prepared in the past due to the reaction status of excessive melting damage, a change in geological quality, and a test of extra-line, etc. However, when the Defendant requested an appraisal of the instant sales contract to the high-tech tax evasion officer of the Seoul regional tax office, it is difficult to recognize that the instant sales contract was prepared ex post, as a result of the appraiser's appraisal of excessive and paper ingredients using the contract, and even after the appraisal result of the said appraiser KimB, it is difficult for the prosecutor to determine that the instant sales contract was a forest of this case as at the time of the first instance judgment, and therefore, it is difficult for the Seoul regional tax office to recognize that the instant appraiser's appraisal was made at the time of the first instance.
○ At the 6th bottom of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:
E) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s determination of the acquisition value as the conversion value without determining the acquisition value according to the transaction example or appraisal value pursuant to Article 176-2(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is unlawful. However, in the instant case, the acquisition value should be calculated based on the conversion value on the transaction example (where there is an example of sale of assets having the identity or similarity of the relevant assets within three months before and after the date of acquisition, the value thereof), or the appraisal value (where there is an appraisal value assessed by at least two appraisal business entities with respect to the relevant assets within three months before and after the date of acquisition,
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.