양도소득세등부과처분취소
1. The Defendant’s totaling KRW 288,50,150,000,000,000 for capital gains tax and additional tax for the year 2009 owed to the Plaintiff on August 1, 2012.
1. On July 15, 2008, the Plaintiff, who was owned B, constructed five stories (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) of Yangsan-si, Yangsan-si, c. 244.6 square meters and D 308.6 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”). On July 25, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant lands from B with KRW 830 million and completed the registration of ownership transfer and the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the instant lands and buildings on the same day.
On November 23, 2009, the Plaintiff decided to sell each of the instant lands and buildings in KRW 1.85 billion to D and D Co., Ltd., and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 9, 2009.
In addition, on January 11, 2010, the Plaintiff entered the acquisition value of the instant building in KRW 1,163,989,565, and calculated gains on transfer of each of the instant land and buildings as KRW 195,772,355, and made a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains to the Defendant.
However, in May 1, 2012, the Defendant conducted an investigation into capital gains tax for the Plaintiff in 2008, and deemed the acquisition value of the instant building as KRW 441,126,05, and recognized gains on transfer of each of the instant land and buildings as KRW 540,595,345, and accordingly, notified the Plaintiff on August 1, 2012, of the correction of capital gains tax and additional tax for the year 2008 as KRW 288,50,150.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 26, 2012 regarding the instant disposition by asserting that the acquisition value of the instant building ought to be calculated by means of the conversion value, but was dismissed on December 6, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments;
A. It is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to view only KRW 441,126,055 as the actual acquisition value of the instant building, only the sum of the construction cost and other expenses equipped with evidentiary documents.
In this case.