2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 1/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant imposed the OOOO on the Plaintiff on January 2, 2014, the transfer income tax of which belongs to the year 2012.

Sector shall be revoked.

A. On September 7, 200, the Plaintiff donated OO-dong O-dong O-dong 239.4 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and 427.08 square meters of the third floor building (hereinafter “instant building”) from her husband and her husband on September 7, 200, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 9, 200.

B. After March 14, 2002, the Plaintiff extended the 4th floor to 51.65 square meters on the instant building.

C. On October 25, 2012, the Plaintiff sold the instant land and buildings (including the building portion) to JE at KRW 00 million.

라. 원고는 2012. 12. 11. 이 사건 토지 및 건물(증축 건물부분 포함)에 관한 양도소득세를 예정 신고함에 있어, ㉠ 양도가액을 실거래가격인 O억 OOO만 원, ㉡ 취득가액을 이 사건 토지 및 건물에 관하여는 2개의 감정평가기관(주식회사 DD감정평가법인과 주식회사 CC감정평가법인, 이하 'DD감정평가법인', 'CC감정평가법인'이라 한다)으로부터 평가받은 감정가액의 평균치에 해당하는 OOO,OOO,OOO원[= OOO,OOO,OOO원(DD감정평가법인 감정가액 OOO,OOO,OOO원 + CC감정평가법인감정가액 OOO,OOO,OOO원)☓1/2], 증축건물에 관하여는 환산가액인 OO,OOO,OOO원(취득가액 합계 OOO,OOO,OOO원)으로 하여 양도소득세 과세표준 신고를 하고, 이에 의하여 산출된 양도소득세 OO,OOO,OOO원을 피고에게 자진 납부하였다.

E. On January 13, 2014, the Defendant: (a) calculated the acquisition value of the instant land and buildings on which the Plaintiff reported the tax base of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff based on the amount assessed retroactively, and thus cannot be recognized as the acquisition value; and (b) issued an additional disposition imposing capital gains tax on the Plaintiff, OOOO, and OOOO based on the standard market price at the time of donation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, requested an inquiry to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on April 24, 2014.

G. Meanwhile, the land of this case according to the court's entrustment of appraisal (hereinafter "the court's appraisal")

As of the evaluation base date of the instant land and buildings, the F Appraisal Office’s appraiser categoryG (hereinafter “Court appraiser”) assessed the appraisal value (hereinafter “court appraisal value”) as OO, OO, and OO(=OO, OO, and OO + the land of this case + OO, OO, and OO of the instant building).

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap's evidence 1 through 5 (including household numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

This court's appraisal value is assessed in an objective and reasonable manner and can be seen as "market price under Article 60 (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter "the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act"). Thus, the acquisition value of the above appraisal value should be calculated by using the above appraisal value as the acquisition value, and the disposition of the first party against another transfer property is unlawful.

2) The defendant's assertion

In light of the fact that the appraisal of the Plaintiff’s request and the appraisal of this court were made at the expiration of more than 12 years and 2 months from the date of donation which is the standard date of appraisal, and in particular, each of the above appraisers selected the appraisal precedents to correct other factors in the appraisal of the instant land. The above appraisal precedents did not select real estate for the purpose of ordinary transaction, but did not select the real estate for the purpose of the security or auction, and subsequently, selected other factors were corrected based on the results. Thus, this process seems to have considerable influence on the calculation of objective appraisal values. In light of the fact that there were defects in the calculation process of the refinancing cost decided by each of the above appraisers in the appraisal of the instant building, the appraisal prices calculated by each of the above appraisers cannot be deemed to be the market price reflecting the objective exchange values of the instant land and building as at the standard date of appraisal, and thus, it constitutes “cases where it is difficult to calculate the market price” under Article 60(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Accordingly, the disposition of this case is legitimate.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Characteristics of the instant land and buildings

At the time of September 9, 200, the land category of this case was 'the land category as of September 9, 200,' and the utilization status was 'the main use area was 'the general residence', 'the road traffic is 'the middle-ro area', 'the shape land' and 'the shape land leveled'. The building of this case was newly constructed on March 7, 1996. At the time of September 9, 200, the building of reinforced concrete slab roof was 3 floors above the ground of reinforced concrete slab roof.

2) Each appraisal on the instant land and building

A) Appraisal by DD Appraisal Corporation

(1) In assessing the price at the time of September 9, 200 of the instant land, appraiser Kim H had selected "O-O-O-O-223.7 square meters in comparison with the instant land," which is identical or almost similar to the instant land category, specific use area (general residence), road conditions (public use), shape geographical features (public use), and geographically adjacent 'O-O-O-223.7 square meters in comparison with the instant land. In addition, considering the land price rate (1.01471) for the time revision of the officially announced land price of the relevant comparative standard land, the difference rate was calculated by comparing the regional factors (1.0901) with the individual factors (1.09), and then calculated the difference rate of difference between the instant land and the instant land as of September 9, 200, 'O-O-35 O-O-1960 square meters in comparison with the instant land as security factors (1.09000 square meters in comparison with the instant land.

(2) At the time of September 9, 2000, the said appraiser had to do so (at the time of extension).

In evaluating shooting, the unit price table for new construction in 2012 was determined as OO, OO, or OO(OO/Mam2) by reflecting the revised unit price according to incidental facilities, etc. in consideration of the structure, use, degree of construction, degree of finishing materials, economic characteristics, etc. of the building of this case, and the unit price for new construction was determined as OO, OO, or OO(O/m2) after the provisional revision was made based on the economic useful life.

B) Appraisal byCC appraisal corporations

(1) In assessing the price of the instant land, the CC Appraisal Corporation’s appraiser ParkJ selected the comparable standard place as “O-O-O-223.7mm2” at OO-O-O-2, and then publicly notified as the above compared standard place 1) was somewhat open compared to the comparison standard place under the environmental conditions, but it deemed that the street conditions and the access conditions are likely to be little.

Considering the land price fluctuation rate (1.01471), the land price fluctuation rate (1.01.01) was calculated in comparison with the regional factors (1.072) and the individual factors (1.072) with the land of this case, and then the neighboring assessment line was selected as 'OO-O-O large 351.6 square meters (1.00 on May 8, 1999 at the time of price) in order to correct other factors, the appraisal value of the land of this case was calculated as OO, OO, OO-O(O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O 35 square meters) with the value of other factors corrected as 1.35.

(2) At the time of September 9, 2000, the said appraiser had to do so (at the time of extension).

In evaluating shooting, the unit price table for new construction in 2012 was determined as OO, OO, or OO(OO/Mam2) by reflecting the revised unit price according to incidental facilities, etc. in consideration of the structure, use, degree of construction, degree of finishing materials, economic characteristics, etc. of the building of this case, and the unit price for new construction was determined as OO, OO, or OO(O/m2) after the provisional revision was made based on the economic useful life.

C) The appraisal of this Court

(1) In assessing the price of the instant land, appraiser GG of this Court also selected 'O-O-O-223.7 square meters' which are identical or similar to that of the instant land as a comparative standard, and then calculated the appraisal price of the instant land as OO-O-O-O-O-227.7 square meters in comparison with the regional factors (1.0103) and individual factors (1.01.03) in comparison with the instant land and the instant land, calculated the gap rate by comparing the difference between the regional factors (1) of the comparative standard land and the instant land, and then calculated the neighboring appraisal line as O-O-O-O-8 square meters (1.03 square meters at the time of price) for the purpose of correcting other factors (1.42 of March 27, 2003).

(2) In assessing the price of the instant building at the time of September 9, 2000, the said appraiser reflected the structure of the instant building, materials used, construction level, management status, and the timing of the price, by referring to the unit price table of new construction in 2002, and determined re-purchase cost as OO, OOO, OO, OO, OO(OO, OO/m2) based on economic service life, and then assessed the instant building as OO, OO, OO, OO(O/m2) (O/m2) based on economic service life.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, and the F Appraisal Office of this Court's entrustment of appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Determination of acquisition value to compute the gains on transfer of the instant land and buildings

A) According to Article 97(1)1 of the Income Tax Act, the acquisition value for calculating gains on transfer is based on the actual transaction value incurred in the acquisition of assets, and in cases where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition, there is no transaction example, appraisal value, or actual transaction value at the time of acquisition. Therefore, separate provisions on the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition were needed. The main text of Article 163(9) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that “in cases of a person who succeeds or receives a donation, the value assessed pursuant to the provisions of Articles 60 through 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as of the date of commencing the inheritance or donation shall be deemed as the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition” (see, e

Meanwhile, the main text of Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the value of the property on which the inheritance tax or gift tax is levied under this Act shall be the market value as of the date of commencing the inheritance or the date of donation, and Article 60(2) of the same Act provides that "the market value under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be the value generally recognized as established when free transactions are conducted between many and unspecified persons and shall be recognized as the market value under the conditions as prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the expropriation price, public sale price, and appraisal price." Thus, since the market value under the provision of Article 60(2) of the same Act is not limited to those recognized as the market value under the conditions as prescribed by Presidential Decree, each subparagraph of Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act by delegation is merely an example of the representative cases that can be deemed as the market value of the inherited property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du23200, Jan. 14; 2009Du508).

Therefore, even if the tax authority imposed capital gains tax on inherited assets based on the actual transaction value at the time of the acquisition, on the grounds that it is difficult to assess the market value at the time of the inheritance of the relevant assets, the tax authority imposed capital gains tax by a supplementary assessment method for the reason that it is difficult to assess the market value at the time of the inheritance of the relevant assets, it should determine whether the market value at the time of the inheritance of the relevant assets exceeds the reasonable tax amount after calculating the reasonable transfer margin and the tax amount by the market value, etc., and the "market price" in this context refers to the objective exchange price formed through normal transactions in principle. However, since the concept includes the value assessed in an objective and reasonable manner, if there is no exchange price through the transaction, it can be seen as the "market price," and even if the value does not change by a retroactive appraisal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du1834, Feb. 1, 2008; 204Du2536, Sept. 30, 2005).

B) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the facts and purport of the Plaintiff’s construction of the instant building into account: (i) the appraisal value of the instant land is almost the same as the instant land in accordance with the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal Act; (ii) the appraisal value of the instant land is deemed to have been assessed after the time adjustment, regional factors, individual factors, and other factors were corrected as of the date of donation; and (iii) the Defendant’s application of the revised appraisal value to the land for the purpose of auction, which is not the real sale of the instant land, was low by applying the 20th appraisal price of the instant building, which is not the 0th appraisal price at the time of appraisal; (iv) the appraisal value at the time of appraisal and assessment to the extent that the Plaintiff appears to have been calculated based on the 20th appraisal price of the instant land, which is not the 20th appraisal price at the time of appraisal and assessment.

(ii)the calculation of a reasonable amount of tax;

A) Therefore, if the court’s appraisal value is deemed the market price at the time of donation of the instant land and building, and the transfer income tax to be paid in connection with the transfer of the instant land and building is calculated, such transfer income tax as in the annexed tax calculation sheet is an O,O, andOO as in the annexed tax calculation sheet.

B) However, since the Plaintiff already paid O,O, andOO in filing a scheduled return of capital gains tax on the instant land and building, the Plaintiff is a legitimate member of O,O, andOO. Therefore, the portion of imposition exceeding O, O,O, andO, which is additionally imposed on the Plaintiff due to the instant disposition, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.