양도소득세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by the overall purport of Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 9, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 10, and Eul evidence 1 (including each number), and all the arguments.
The Plaintiff, as of July 20, 1998, transferred to D 130,000,000 square meters of the wife population B apartment house (exclusive use area of 59.990 square meters; hereinafter “the first house of this case”) as of December 29, 2006, but did not report the transfer income tax to the Defendant. At the time of the transfer of the above apartment, the Plaintiff owned the E Apartment-ho (hereinafter “the second apartment house of this case”) of the Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul, 2005 at the time of the transfer of the apartment.
Therefore, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax after the deadline for the transfer income tax as to the transfer of the second house, but the Plaintiff did not report the transfer income tax. On August 17, 2009, the Defendant determined the transfer value as the actual transaction value on the ground that the first house of this case of the Plaintiff is located in the designated area pursuant to Article 104-2 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008) on the ground that the first house of this case of this case of the Plaintiff is located in the designated area, and imposed the transfer value of the first house of this case of this case 130 million won and the acquisition value of the second house of this case as KRW 91,47,738, respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On September 15, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on September 15, 2009. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on December 18, 2009.
The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.
The first house does not fall under the “designated area” under Article 104-2(2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008). Thus, the standard market price is the standard market price.