특수관계자인 배우자의 부동산을 무상으로 사용하였으므로 시가로 과세한 처분은 정담함[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap34187 ( December 10, 2010)
National Tax Service Review Income 2010-003 (2010.06.07)
Since the spouse who is a person with a special relationship uses the real estate without compensation, the disposition taxable at the market price is determined.
(As in the judgment of the court of first instance) The plaintiff is confirmed to have used the real estate of spouse's share free of charge, and thus a disposition imposing tax on the rent amount transacted with a third party who is not a related party at the market price is legitimate
2011Nu248 global income and revocation of disposition
Gux 1 other
Head of Seodaemun Tax Office
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap34187 decided December 10, 2010
February 22, 2012
April 4, 2012
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of global income tax for the year 2004 on November 5, 2009, global income tax for the year 2005, global income tax for the year 2006, global income tax for the year 2007, global income tax for the year 2007, and global income tax for the year 2008 shall be revoked.
1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance
The reasons for this court's decision are as follows. The court of first instance's decision is to dismiss "members of XX" that will be 3rd below under the 5th judgment of the court of first instance, and the corresponding part of the court of first instance except for addition of the decision on the plaintiffs' arguments in the next paragraph. The court's decision is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of
2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion
The plaintiffs asserted that the disposition of this case, which applied the different criteria, is unlawful since there is no rent case for the first floor of the members of this case transacted with a third party, not with a specially related party, and thus, the market price of real estate rental services is unclear.
However, in a case where a business operator leases real estate at an unreasonably low price to a person with a special relationship, the market price of the real estate rental service, which serves as the tax base, should be based on the price formed in normal transactions with a person without a special relationship with the business operator, and in the absence of such a transaction practices, the appraisal price of a reliable appraisal institution may be deemed as the market price of the real estate rental service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu1570, Sept. 9, 1997; 2006Du11620, Dec. 11, 2008). In calculating the rent for the first floor of the Council member, the defendant calculated the rent for the first floor of the Council member, on the basis of the average of the monthly rent for the first floor of the same building and the store rent for each month at the xan store at the xan, the owner of the building of the building of this case, and in light of its location, utilization, surrounding environment, transaction price, etc., the disposition of this case constitutes a legitimate transaction between the third party.
On a different premise, the prior Plaintiffs’ assertion cannot be accepted.
3. Conclusion
The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.