Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap1850 ( October 24, 2013)

early 2012west 3940 ( December 26, 2012)

The actual transaction value of the real estate of this case is the transaction value on the registry.

No objective evidence, such as financial data to support the Plaintiff’s assertion that the transaction value on the register is false, is not submitted, and the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed as the value of the real estate sales contract does not reach the officially announced value.

2013Nu30492 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

NewA

head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap1850 decided October 24, 2013

June 11, 2014

July 16, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be lodged.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On February 1, 2012, the defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of the gift tax OOO(including additional OOOO) against the plaintiff (the defendant decided on May 20, 2014 to reduce the amount of gift tax on the plaintiff to OOO, and accordingly, the plaintiff reduced the purport of the claim in the trial).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

"The reasons for this court's instructions are 2 pages 13 and below. However, on May 20, 2014, when the appellate court of this case was in progress, the defendant recognized that the plaintiff acquired the OOO of the obligation to return the lease deposit of the ship B related to the housing of this case on May 20, 2014, and accordingly, the plaintiff decided to reduce the amount of the gift tax imposed on the plaintiff from the OOO of the housing price of this case after deducting the OOOO won from the OO of the housing price of this case." This court added "the amount of gift tax imposed on the plaintiff was reduced from the OOO of the above OO (including additional tax OOO)" to the OOO. The plaintiff added the judgment on the argument that the plaintiff stressed or excluded in particular by this court is identical with the reasons for the first instance court's decision."

A. Summary of the argument

The transaction price of the instant housing is nothing more than the OO members, and support the entry of the Plaintiff’s mother-friendly GuCC and the sales contract (Evidence A1) drafted by KimD. Accordingly, in the process of transferring the ownership of the instant housing to the Plaintiff, the money paid instead of the Plaintiff’s mother-child in the process of transferring the ownership of the instant housing is merely an OO member who deducts the deposit OO members from the deposit money for lease. As such, in this context, the gift deduction deduction of the Plaintiff’s KRW 10,000 from the deduction of the deposit money for lease, it should be deemed that there is no taxable income for the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the instant disposition on a different premise should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Determination

Article 27(1) of the former Act on Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions (amended by Act No. 1186, Jun. 4, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that if a party to a transaction concludes a sale contract on the right to acquire real estate, etc., the head of the Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the location of the real estate shall report the matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as the actual transaction price of the real estate within 60 days after the contract is concluded, and Article 27(3) of the same Act provides that the head of the Si/Gun/Gu who receives the above report shall issue the certificate of completion of report after confirming the contents of the contract. In light of the above provision, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to obtain the certificate of completion of report pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate, and that the certificate of approval affixed by the head of the Si/Gun/Gu is no more than 1000,000,00

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.