양도소득세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building B, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu and its ground building (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate” by combining the land and buildings). The Plaintiff’s Chocheon-gu and Da are one-half shares of each of the co-owner of the Plaintiff’s land for E factory, 8,065 square meters, F forest land, 14,11 square meters, and G forest land 694 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “real estate subject to exchange”).
B. On April 10, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate exchange agreement with C and D to exchange the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant exchange agreement”) and agreed to pay the assessed value of the instant real estate as KRW 698,371,60, and the assessed value of the instant real estate subject to exchange as KRW 572,867,510, and to pay the Plaintiff the exchange difference of KRW 125,504,090 (=698,371,600 - 572,867,510) on April 10, 2012.
C. On April 20, 2012, the Plaintiff received an exchange difference of KRW 125,504,090 from C in the account (Account Number H) in the name of the Plaintiff.
On April 20, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a tax base for capital gains in 2012 with the purport that the transfer value of the instant real estate is KRW 698,371,60, the assessed value under the exchange contract, and the acquisition value is KRW 766,052,830, which is the actual transaction value, and there is no capital gains tax payable.
E. As a result of the on-site investigation of transfer income tax on the appropriateness of the actual transaction price reported by the Plaintiff, the Defendant conducted an on-site investigation of transfer income tax on the ground that the transfer price and acquisition price of the instant real estate in accordance with the standard market price (transfer price of 698,371,600, acquisition price of 231,332,000, acquisition price of 231,332,000) cannot be recognized as the actual transaction price due to a simple exchange without any market price appraisal, and on January 3, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction of transfer income tax of 117,258,590
(f) The plaintiff is against the disposition of this case.