Cheongbu 201J 346 ( December 30, 2011)

The sale price reported by a land purchaser as the acquisition price is legitimate.

In light of the fact that the sales contract submitted by a seller only includes the purchase price and does not specify all the details of payment method, while the contract submitted by a buyer includes specific details, it is reasonable to deem that the purchase price of land is an amount under the contract submitted by

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

2012Guhap1458 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Park XX

Head of Suwon Tax Office

July 26, 2012

August 30, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2005 against the Plaintiff on April 4, 2011 is revoked (it appears that KRW 000 among the purport of the claim appears to be a clerical error of KRW 000).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 9, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired the gold Island 00,000 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m30,621 m20 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) from the PP of a social welfare foundation to sell it to the GuA on May 18, 2005. The Plaintiff filed a final return on capital gains tax by making the transfer value of the instant land KRW 000 and KRW 000.

B. After selling the instant land to the Republic of Korea on June 20, 2007, doorA filed a transfer income tax return with the acquisition value of the instant land at KRW 000. After that, as the transfer value of the instant land reported by the Plaintiff and the above acquisition value of doorA were not inconsistent, doorA filed a revised return of the acquisition value of the instant land at KRW 000.

C. On April 4, 2011, the Defendant: (a) determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the transfer income tax reverted to the year 2005 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by deeming that the Plaintiff sold the instant land to literatureA in KRW 000.

D. The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 30, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 9, 10, Gap evidence 11-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 1-2, Eul evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The contract in which the purchase price of the instant land was KRW 000 was written differently from the fact that the Plaintiff failed to pay a brokerage commission, etc., and the Plaintiff sold the instant land to doorA in KRW 000. Therefore, the instant disposition, which was premised on the premise that the Plaintiff sold the instant land to doorA in KRW 000, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

Under the following circumstances, Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 11-1-2, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings is comprehensively taken into account: (i) the sales price of the land of this case shall be KRW 000,000, and the remainder shall be paid at the time of the contract, May 17, 2005, and the remainder shall be replaced by bank loans; (ii) the sales price of this case shall be KRW 00,000,000, and the remainder shall be paid at the time of the contract, and the contract shall be replaced by bank loans; and (iii) the specific contents of the payment method shall be stated in the contract, and (iv) the plaintiff shall purchase the real estate of this case at KRW 1,00,00,000, including the amount succeeded to KRW 00,000, and it is difficult to pay the remainder of the land of this case to the plaintiff's agent in light of the legal purport of the contract of this case.

Therefore, the disposition of this case which imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff by deeming that the Plaintiff sold the instant land to doorA in KRW 000 is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the purchase price of the instant land is KRW 000 cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.