Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

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

A. The Plaintiff’s exchange contract with AA

원고는 2000. 10. 25. 수원시 장안구 XX동 000 XX 제000호 및 제000호(이하 통틀어 '제1부동산'이라 한다)를 취득하여 보유하다가 2004. 4. 8.경 소외 정AA과 사이에 제1부동산과 원고 소유의 수원시 장안구 OO동 000-00 및 같은 동 000-00 소재 각 토지 및 그 지상 건물을 정AA 소유의 평택시 청북면 AA리 000-0 답 5,390㎡(이하 '제2부동산'이라 한다)와 교환하되, 그 교환차액 중 일부는 피고인이 정AA에게 현금으로 지급하고 나머지는 피고인이 정AA에게 피고인이 재배하던 난(蘭)을 인도하고 정AA의 금융기관 대출금채무를 인수하는 것으로 갈음하기로 하는 교환계약 (이하 '이 사건 교환계약'이라 한다)을 체결하였다. 위 계약에서 합의된 교환가액의 구체적인 내용은 아래 표 기재와 같다.

(b) Imposition of transfer income tax for 204.

(1) On March 25, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the said real estate to Nonparty YellowB, who purchased the said real estate 1 from Jeong, etc., and subsequently, on April 30, 2005, the Plaintiff made a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income to the effect that there is no transfer margin, by calculating the actual transaction value of the said real estate 1 on April 30, 2005 as KRW 00, acquisition value0, and other necessary expenses as the transfer margin is nonexistent.

(2) However, the Defendant calculated gains on transfer of the first real estate based on the standard market price on the ground that it is difficult to view the transaction value reported by the Plaintiff as the actual transaction value, not based on the market price appraisal, etc. (i.e., transfer value of KRW 000 - acquisition value of KRW 000 - Other necessary expenses) and accordingly, notified the Plaintiff on October 10, 2010 that the transfer income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2004 was corrected and notified (hereinafter “instant first imposition disposition”).

(3) On January 10, 201, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 10, 201, but the said claim was dismissed on April 25, 201.

(c) Imposition of transfer income tax for 2008;

(1) On December 8, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired the second real estate from Jeong on December 8, 2004 in accordance with the instant exchange contract, and thereafter, changed the category of 99 square meters among them to a site, newly constructed a restaurant and a multi-family house on that ground, divided the remainder of 4,392 square meters into six lots, and transferred each of the above real estate to the Nonparty Gangnam et al. around 2008.

(2) On May 31, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a final return on the tax base of transfer income to the effect that there is no capital gains tax to be paid on the grounds that there is no capital gains tax, since the transfer price of each of the above real estate, including real estate No. 2, including the real estate No. 2, is calculated as KRW 000, acquisition

(3) However, the Defendant calculated transfer margin based on the standard market price on the ground that it is difficult to view the exchange value of the two real estate in the instant case as the actual transaction price as the result of the on-site investigation, while deeming that the entire real estate in question constituted non-business land, and applied the heavy tax rate of 60% to the Plaintiff on October 6, 2010, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of transfer income tax

(4) On January 10, 201, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review with the National Tax Service on January 10, 201. As a result of the review, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a partial decision of acceptance on April 8, 201 to rectify the relevant tax base and tax amount on the ground that part of the pertinent real estate does not constitute non-business land. Accordingly, the Defendant corrected the relevant tax base and tax amount, thereby reducing the amount of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff to KRW 00 (hereinafter “instant 2 imposition disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 2 through 7, 13, 22 evidence, Eul's 1 through 5, 7, 20 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the exchange contract of this case is a contract actually accompanied by the market price appraisal and settlement procedures and the transaction price agreed upon under the above contract can be fully acknowledged as the actual transaction price, it is unlawful for the defendant's 1 and 2 imposition disposition of this case, which calculated transfer margin based on the standard market price based on the exchange contract of this case.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Articles 96(1) and 97(1)1(a) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837, Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply) provide that, in principle, the transfer value and acquisition value of assets under Article 94(1)1 and 2 of the same Act shall be based on the market price as at the time of transfer and acquisition at the time of transfer and exceptional cases, only in cases where the actual transaction value is calculated based on the actual transaction value, and Article 96(1)6 and the proviso of Article 97(1)1(a) of the same Act provides that, “Where the transferor files a return on the actual transaction value as at the time of transfer and acquisition to the head of the competent tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment by the time of final return on transfer income tax base and the actual transaction value as at the time of transfer or acquisition value determined by the Presidential Decree shall be based on the standard market price or appraisal value under Articles 96 and 97.

In full view of the contents and purport of the above provisions, where the value reported by the transferor of assets under Article 94 (1) 1 and 2 of the former Income Tax Act is confirmed to be the actual transaction value, the transfer income amount shall be calculated based on the actual transfer and acquisition value. However, where the reported value is not confirmed to be the actual transaction value, the transfer income amount shall be calculated based on the standard market price except where the proviso of Article 114 (4) of the same Act applies as the transferor confirms other actual transaction values reported by the chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment, etc. In addition, the actual transfer value of the relevant assets, which serves as the basis for calculating the transfer income tax, means the value objectively recognized by sales contract or other evidence as the price of the assets transferred by the transferor at the time of the transaction. Therefore, where a transaction is exchanged, the market price appraisal of the object is accompanied by the procedure for settling the difference in the value of the object, the actual transfer value can be confirmed, but where only the difference between the value of the object is determined to be exchanged by agreement between the parties.

(2) 위 법리에 기초하여 이 사건에서 보건대, 원고가 2004. 4. 8.경 정AA과 사이에 제1, 2부동산 등을 교환하기로 하면서 그 교환차액 중 일부는 피고인이 정AA에게 현금으로 지급하고 나머지는 피고인이 정AA에게 피고인이 재배하던 난(蘭)을 양도하고 정AA의 대출금채무를 인수하는 것으로 갈음하기로 하는 내용의 교환계약을 체결한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 여기에 을 제1 내지 6, 8 내지 13호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 원고는 위 교환차액 중 일부의 지급에 갈음하여 정AA 측에 시가 합계 11억 원 상당의 난(蘭)을 인도하였다고 주장하나, ㉠ 위 교환계약서상 난(蘭)의 종류 및 수량이 전혀 특정되어 있지 아니하고, ㉡ 원고는 난(蘭)의 구입 및 관리 과정에서 소요된 비용에 관한 증거자료를 전혀 제출하지 못하고 있고 난(蘭)의 실존 여부조차 제대로 밝히지 못하고 있으며, ㉢ 정AA은 피고의 실지조사 당시 "원고로부터 난(蘭)을 받은 사실이 전혀 없다 라고 진술하고 있으므로, 원고의 위 주장은 선뜻 믿기 어려운 점, ② 원고를 대리하여 이 사건 교환계약을 체결한 원고의 남편 정DD은 피고의 실지조사 과정에서 "제1부동산의 양도가액은 구입가격 5억 원에 각종 비용을 더하여 000원으로 정하였고, 제2부동산의 양도가액은 계약체결 당시 정AA을 대리한 망 김EE(정AA의 제부)이 제시한 금액대로 정하였다 라고 진술한 점, ③ 이 사건 교환계약서에는 제2부동산의 가액이 000원으로 기재되어 있으나, 정AA이 원고에게 제2부동산을 양도한 후 과세관청에 신고한 위 부동산의 양도가액은 000원이었고, 당시 제2부동산의 개별공시지가는 그보다도 훨씬 적은 000원에 불과하였던 점, ④ 원고는 제2부동산의 취득 및 양도과정에서 양도손실이 발생하였다고 신고하였으나, 원고의 제2부동산 보유기간(2004년 - 2008년) 중 위 부동산의 개별공시시가가 000원에서 000원으로 약 10배가량 상승한 점 등에 비추어 위 신고내용은 그대로 믿기 어려운 점 등을 종합하면, 이 사건 교환계약은 교환대상 목적물의 객관적 가액평가를 기준으로 가치적 교환을 한 것이 아니라 교환계약 당사자들이 교환대상 목적물의 가액을 임의로 평가하여 정한 다음 그 차액을 산정한 경우에 해당하므로, 이 사건 교환계약에 따른 제1, 2부동산의 취득 및 양도는 그 실지거래가액을 확인할 수 없는 경우에 해당한다 할 것이다.

(3) Therefore, each of the dispositions in this case by the Defendant, which determined the transfer margin based on the standard market price with respect to the acquisition and transfer of real estate Nos. 1 and 2, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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