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

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On February 28, 2003, the Plaintiff purchased 170,000,000,000 won in total and owned the instant land in 122,00,000,000 won in April 17, 2006, and sold 122,00,000,000 won in capital gains tax calculated by applying the acquisition value of the instant land as KRW 80,00,000,000 to the Defendant.

B. The defendant held that since the plaintiff acquired the remaining land and the housing together with the original land in 170,000,000 won as a lump sum, it is unclear that the real value of each real estate is distinguished, the real acquisition value of the land in this case should be calculated in proportion to the value calculated according to each standard market price. As such, the defendant calculated the real acquisition value of the land in this case as 31,403,000 won in proportion to the value calculated according to each standard market price, and as a result, calculated the real acquisition value of the land in this case by such method, then deducted the above 31,403,000 won from the above real transfer value of 122,00,000 won from the above real transfer value of 122,597,000 won from the above transfer value of 1,597,000 won as gains from transfer, and imposed the correction of the transfer income tax

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

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful and should be revoked for the following reasons.

(1) 원고는 당초 지목이 답인 이 사건 토지와 지목이 대인 나머지 토지들 및 주택을 일괄 매수하면서 주택은 사실상 폐가 상태로 있어 가격이 없는 것으로 하고, 이 사건 토지의 지목이 비록 답이기는 하나 도로에 접해 있어 사실상 대지로 사용되는 점과 나머지 토지들은 이 사건 토지를 통하지 않으면 공로에 출입이 불가능한 맹지인 점을 감안하여 이 사건 토지 및 나머지 토지들의 가격에 차이를 두지 않고 모두 평당 427,000원으로 계산하여 이를 170,000,000원에 매수하였던 것이어서, 이 사건 토지의 실지취득가액은 80,000,000원(≒ 약 188평 X 427,000원)이므로, 이와 달리 이 사건 토지의 실지취득가액을 기준시가에 따라 안분하여 산정한 31,403,000원으로 보고 한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

(2) Even if the actual acquisition value of the instant land should be KRW 31,403,00,00, the Plaintiff calculated the actual acquisition value of the instant land from KRW 170,000,00, which is the total purchase value, by deducting the actual acquisition value of the instant land from KRW 80,000,000, which is the actual acquisition value of the instant land, as the Plaintiff reported and paid the instant land at KRW 80,000,000, while selling the remaining land around 2005 and reporting and paying the transfer income tax, and thus, there was no substantial benefit due to the Plaintiff’s report and payment of the transfer income tax with the actual acquisition value of KRW 80,00,00. Thus, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, which is improper, and thus, it is also improper to deem the actual acquisition value of the instant land as the actual acquisition value of the instant land at KRW 31,403,00, and thus, it is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 96 (Value of Transfer)

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

Article 100 (Calculation of Gains from Transfer of Gu Income Tax)

Article 114 (Determination, Revision and Notification of Tax Base and Amount of Tax for Transfer Income)

Article 166 (Calculation, etc. of Gains on Transfer)

Article 48-2 (Calculation of Tax Base of Value-Added Tax Act)

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to the allegation in paragraph (1) of the above A-A-be

Pursuant to Articles 100(2) and 114(4) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006), Article 166(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890 of Feb. 28, 2007), and Article 48-2(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, where the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment corrects the tax base of transfer income and the tax amount, where the resident makes a preliminary return of the tax base of transfer income, and the return amount is different from the fact, if the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment has confirmed the actual transaction price, he shall correct the tax base of transfer income and the tax amount by using the verified transfer value or the acquisition value as the actual transaction price, and if the land and buildings, etc. are acquired or transferred together

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to this case's health stand, Eul evidence 3-1 to 3, and witness ○○'s testimony, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's purchase of the land of this case and the remaining land of this case and the remaining housing together with the real estate price of 170,000,000 won as a whole without distinguishing the value of each real estate from the original Kim○'s purchase of the land of this case, and without specifying the specific amount, the plaintiff's purchase price of the land of this case is determined as 170,00,000 won as a whole [the part of evidence Nos. 2-1 (a sales contract) of the evidence No. 2-1 of this case's certificate No. 2-1 of this case's purchase price of the land of this case cannot be used as evidence since there is no evidence to find that the plaintiff's purchase of the land of this case by specifying the value of the land of this case at will after the conclusion of the contract, and therefore, it is legitimate for the plaintiff's assertion that it is legitimate.

(2) Determination as to the assertion stated in paragraph (2) of the above A-A-2

On the other hand, as seen earlier, in a case where the resident confirmed the actual transaction value and corrected the transfer income tax base and the tax amount based on the actual acquisition value due to the difference in the actual acquisition value reported by the resident, the plaintiff did not have to have made a substantial profit due to the plaintiff's erroneous report on the actual acquisition value of the land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case is improper is without merit, and in a case where the plaintiff filed a return or payment of transfer income tax due to the sale of the remaining land less than the actual acquisition value at the time of filing a return or payment of transfer income tax due to the sale of the remaining land, it can be recovered by filing a request for correction, etc. pursuant to Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the defendant's own request for correction, etc. pursuant to Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, it cannot be said that the disposition of this case is unfair because the defendant did not increase the actual acquisition value of the remaining

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.