It is legitimate that the value of the same land is the acquisition value by denying the report on the conversion acquisition value;

If a notice of property statement, etc. is served in Korea, it constitutes a domestic tax manager, and the acquisition value of the same land is denied, and the disposal is legitimate as acquisition value of the same land.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income)

2014Guhap51921 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

September 23, 2015

November 4, 2015

1. Each of the plaintiff's claims is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 00,00,000 for the year 2007, which the Plaintiff rendered on May 22, 2013, and the imposition disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 00,000 for the year 207, which the Defendant rendered on May 23, 2013, shall be revoked in entirety.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 26, 1996, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the cancellation of title trust on June 22, 1996 with respect to 1,322 of Nowon-gu 5289.6/124,595 of the shares in ○○○○, ○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, 122-1 Forest land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On September 6, 2007, the instant land was divided into 122,266 square meters and divided into 308-4 forest land, ○○-dong 308-4 forest land (hereinafter “○○-4 land”) and 308-11 forest land, 00 ○○-dong 308-11 forest land (hereinafter “○○-dong 308-11 land”).

C. On November 13, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred 1,322/124,595 shares of 1,322/124,595 shares to ○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○○○”) out of 308-4 shares of 223,00,000 won, and 1,322/124,595 shares of 1,322/124,000 out of 308-11 shares of ○○○○○○○○ on November 14, 2007.

D. On November 5, 2007, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer value of the instant land shares of KRW 250,000,000, which is the actual transaction value (=223,000,000 + KRW 27,000,000), and the acquisition value is KRW 247,50,000,000, which is the conversion acquisition value (==220,500,000 + + KRW 27,000,000), and made a preliminary return of capital gains tax.

E. On May 22, 2013, the Defendant denied the conversion value reported by the Plaintiff, and revised the acquisition value of the instant land as KRW 5,39,048 according to the value under the sales contract between the new ○○○ and Nowon○○ at the time when the Plaintiff acquired the instant land shares, and decided and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax of KRW 80,645,350 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff in 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the first disposition”). On May 23, 2013, the Defendant confirmed that the instant land constitutes a non-business land and notified the Plaintiff of the additional amount of KRW 104,220,39 (including additional tax) for the transfer income tax of KRW 107 for the Plaintiff in 207 (hereinafter referred to as “the second disposition of this case”; and “the first disposition of this case” combined with “the first disposition of this case”).

F. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 21, 2013, but was dismissed on December 11, 2013.

Facts that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Defendant did not serve a tax notice on the instant disposition to the address of the U.S. as indicated in the Plaintiff’s Korean national residing abroad register, but rather served to the address of ○○ U.S., the Plaintiff’s wife, and the Plaintiff only served the instant disposition upon ○○ after the expiration of the exclusion period for imposition. As such, the instant disposition was unlawful without undergoing lawful procedures for delivery.

2) While the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership by reason of the termination of title trust from Noh○○, the Plaintiff actually purchased shares of the instant land from Noh○○ on or around February 1989, and only concluded that the grounds for registration are the termination of title trust. As such, the amount under a sales contract made between new owner of the instant land and Noh○○○○, a former owner of the instant land, cannot be deemed the acquisition

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether a tax payment notice regarding the instant disposition was lawfully served on the Plaintiff

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 8 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that documents under tax-related Acts shall be served on the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office of the person in whose name the document is served, and a tax manager, if any, shall serve a tax payment notice at the domicile or office of the person in whose name the document is served. According to Article 10 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, documents under tax-related Acts shall be served by means of delivery, mail or electronic delivery, and where documents related to the notice of tax payment are served by mail, by registered mail, shall be served; and where documents related to the notice of tax payment are served by a public official of the relevant administrative agency to the person to be served at the place where the document is to be served: Provided, That documents by delivery may be served at another place unless the person to be served refuses to be served. In addition, documents may be served on the person to be served at the place where the document is to be served, as his/her employee, other employee

Meanwhile, in cases where a person to receive documents, such as a person liable for tax payment, who is the other party to a taxation, has expressly or explicitly delegated the right to receive postal items and other documents to another person, such delegated person shall be deemed to have lawfully served the documents on the person to receive the documents upon receipt of the pertinent documents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du1161, Apr. 10, 1998; 200Du1164, Jul. 4, 2000); and in cases where postal items are sent by means of registration, they shall be deemed to have been delivered to the addressee at that time, barring special circumstances such as return, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13127, Dec. 11, 1992).

B) the facts of recognition

(1) The head of ○○○ Tax Office, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the domicile of the Plaintiff’s resident registration card, ascertaining that the Plaintiff is not residing in the Republic of Korea, and asked ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ apartment, 1344, ○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○ apartment, ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○

Things The above Kim ○, a public official affiliated with the ○○○○○, informed the Plaintiff’s ancillary phone number, and the public official in charge knew about the disposition of this case by telephoneing the above number to the Jin○○.

On May 21, 2013, 【○○○’s e-mail sent the following e-mail to the public official in charge of the ○○ Tax Office:

Applicant on May 22, 2013 and May 23, 2013, the Defendant sent the instant tax payment notice to the U.S. address known to the Plaintiff’s father-○ by international mail (Ems), respectively. On May 27, 2013, the Defendant sent the notice to the said U.S. address along with the instant tax payment notice attached.

(v) On May 27, 2013, the Defendant sent the instant tax notice to the address of “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ apartment, 1344, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○,” and on May 30, 2013, Kim○, the father of the said Kim○○○, received the instant tax notice.

"⑹ 국제등기우편(EMS) 행방조회에 따르면, 이 사건 납세고지서는 우체국 사서함으로 송달되었고, 2013. 5. 30. 18:04경○○○○'가 수령함으로써 배달 완료되었다.",⑺ 피고가 이 사건 납세고지서를 송달한 미국 주소는 원고의 재외국민등록부상의 주소는 아니다.

Evidence Nos. 5, Eul Nos. 4 through 6 (including each number), the entire purport of the pleading

C) Determination

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances can be seen by comprehensively considering the health team, the above facts of recognition, the evidence as mentioned above, and the overall purport of oral argument, i.e., ① the plaintiff's domestic tax manager who received a notice of property tax, etc. from the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff before the disposition of this case, ② the above ○○○ constitutes the plaintiff's domestic tax manager, ② the contact address of ○○○○ who is the plaintiff's father residing in the U.S., and ③ the above ○○○ notified the public official in charge on behalf of the plaintiff and the public official in charge of this case by e-mail of the address of the U.S. who can receive the tax notice of this case. In light of the personal and spatial combination relation, the plaintiff appears to have lawfully or explicitly delegated the right to receive postal items and other documents to ○○○○○○, which is a legitimate recipient of the tax notice of this case, ⑤ The plaintiff's domestic tax office's legitimate delivery of this case's tax notice of this case to the plaintiff's domestic tax manager.

2) Whether the calculation of acquisition value is legitimate in the disposition of this case

A) Article 97(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that the acquisition value of land among the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value of a resident shall be the actual transaction value required for the acquisition of land, but where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition, it shall be the transaction example value, appraisal value, or conversion value as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In addition, Article 114(2) and (4) of the former Income Tax Act provides that where any omission or error is found in the details of a taxpayer’s return on the tax base of transfer income and tax amount, the head of the competent tax office, etc. shall correct it based on the value under Article 97, etc., and Article 114(7) of the former Income Tax Act provides that where it is impossible to recognize or confirm the actual transaction value at the time of the acquisition of the relevant asset by books or other documentary evidence, the acquisition value may

B) In light of the following circumstances: (a) ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ number 2, each of the above shares was recorded and the overall purport of pleadings; (b) 1.6/1323 out of the instant land on March 8, 198; (c) the registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 10, 198; (d) on June 26, 1996, the Plaintiff purchased the shares of this case from new ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 6,66,000, supra; (e) the remaining shares purchased from new ○○○○○○○○○○○○.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.