Cho High Court Decision 2012 Deputy 1587 (24. 2012.05)

This disposition is legitimate in the acquisition value of the sales value under the approval contract

Unless there are special circumstances, the claimant must prove that the approval certificate was prepared in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, and it is difficult to recognize that the approval certificate was prepared by lowering the sales price different from the actual sales price, and it is legitimate to regard the sales price as the acquisition price under the approval certificate contract as the acquisition price.

2012Guhap2915 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Song AA

Kim Jong-soo

November 15, 2012

December 13, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on November 1, 2011 against the Plaintiff on November 1, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 15, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired, from thisB, the OB, 00, 320.3 square meters, and the second floor of detached houses and neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), and transferred each of the instant real estate to SouthD on February 10, 201.

B. On March 25, 2011, the Plaintiff reported and paid capital gains tax of KRW 000 with the transfer value of each of the instant real estate at KRW 00, and the acquisition value at KRW 000.

C. On November 1, 201, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s above report and deemed the acquisition value of the instant real estate as KRW 000, and corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000,000, capital gains tax belonging to the year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition filed a request for inquiry with the Tax Tribunal on March 26, 2012, but the said request was dismissed on May 24, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, 1, and 6 evidence 1, and 9 evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant real estate from BB in KRW 000, which was based on the premise that the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from KRW 000,000, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Unless there are special circumstances, the stamp contract prepared by the parties to the transaction and received the inspection of the Mayor and the head of the Gun shall be presumed to have been prepared in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, and the contract has been prepared differently from the actual ones (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2353, Apr. 9, 193). According to the entry of Gap 3, the transfer value of each real estate in the contract of this case is recognized as 00 won, and the plaintiff must prove that the above contract of this case was prepared differently from the actual ones, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the contract of this case was prepared by lowering Eul 4 and 3, and that the contract of this case was prepared differently from the actual ones, and that the account number of 00 won was paid by borrowing 00 won out of the purchase price of 00, and that 201.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.