Seocho 2010west 1800 (Law No. 2037, 2010)

Since the actual transfer value is recognized, the rejection of correction claim is illegal.

In order to sell a building to 220 million won, a sales contract, the purchase price of which is 280 million won, at the buyer’s request, was prepared, and the actual 220 million won was paid by the buyer. Therefore, the transfer price of the building is 220 million won.

2010Gudan22767 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

SAA

head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office

September 20, 2011

October 11, 2011

1. The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on February 17, 2010 shall be revoked.

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 8, 200, the Plaintiff acquired and owned a reinforced concrete building 61.78 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) of Guro-gu Seoul OO-dong 0-00, Guro-gu, Seoul, and transferred the instant building on May 28, 2008.

B. On June 1, 2009, the Plaintiff decided and reported the transfer value to the Defendant at KRW 280 million, acquisition value at KRW 47,618,760, and did not pay the transfer income tax for the year 2008. The Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 51,570,010 for the transfer income tax for the year 2008.

C. On November 16, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of transfer income tax on the ground that the transfer value of the building of this case is not KRW 280 million but KRW 220 million, and that the transfer value of the building of this case is KRW 200 million. However, on February 17, 2010, the Defendant rejected the above request for correction on the ground that “the transfer value of the building of this case cannot be recognized as KRW 220 million” against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the body before oral argument

2 Whether a disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff transferred the instant building to KRW 220,000,000, not in KRW 2800,000. Therefore, the instant disposition otherwise reported is unlawful, even though the transfer value of the instant building was KRW 22,00,000,000.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On May 18, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the purchase price of KRW 2200,000,000,000, with the introduction of YellowB, which is engaged in brokerage business, to sell the instant building to leCC. At the buyer’s request, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the purchase price of KRW 288,00,000.

(2) Afterwards, the Plaintiff requested the buyer to change the buyer’s name to Park E-E, and the Plaintiff changed the buyer’s name to Park E-E, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of Park E-E on August 7, 2008.

(3) The Plaintiff received KRW 220 million from the buyer of the instant building as the purchase price.

(4) Meanwhile, while concluding a sales contract on the instant building, the Plaintiff concluded a special agreement with the purport that the purchaser cannot claim the return of the instant building at the time of the rescission of the sales contract, since the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 60,000 from the intermediate payment.

[Reasons for Recognition] The above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 6, 12 through 24 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 5, YB's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

According to the above recognition theory, the plaintiff transferred the building of this case to KRW 200 million. Thus, the transfer value of the building of this case is KRW 280 million and the disposition of this case which refused the plaintiff's request for correction of both Do income tax was unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.