Early High Court Decision 2010Du0756 ( October 26, 2010)

A disposition to determine the purchase price as acquisition price under a sales contract is lawful.

Since it cannot be readily concluded that a sales contract related to the acquisition of real estate was prepared falsely, the disposition imposing a sales price on the sales contract as acquisition price is legitimate.

2010Guhap3454 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

LAA

○ Head of tax office

April 19, 2011

May 24, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 64,306,250 on the Plaintiff on August 6, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 2, 200, the Plaintiff acquired 4.2/57.2 shares, 1927 large scale 57.2 square meters, 1927 large scale 1927 large scale 58.2 square meters, and 58.2 square meters on the above land (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above land and housing,” and transferred them to RedB on May 24, 2006.

B. On July 5, 2007, when the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax on the instant real estate to the Defendant, the Plaintiff reported the transfer value to KRW 350,00,000, and the acquisition value to KRW 281,97,065, which is the conversion value, and voluntarily paid the transfer income tax.

C. The Defendant reported the transfer amount to KRW 110,00,000 at the time of reporting the transfer income tax, and determined the acquisition value of the Plaintiff’s real estate as KRW 110,000,000, the actual value, and on August 6, 2009, issued the instant disposition that corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 64,306,250, the transfer income tax reverted to the year 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 7, 8 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The contract submitted by the Hea while reporting the transfer income tax on the instant real estate by the HeaA is stated as of January 18, 200, that the date of the contract is different from the date of the registration, and it is stated that the purchase price of KRW 110,00,000 is received in a lump sum, and it is difficult to accurately understand the purchase price as it is clearly stated that the purchase price should be deducted from the balance of the deposit for lease on the instant real estate. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s acquisition price on the instant real estate should be calculated based on the conversion price.

2) Although the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate in KRW 300,000,000, the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract stating that the instant real estate falls under non-taxation as one house for one household, and then filed a transfer income tax by stating the transfer amount in KRW 350,000,000, with the belief that it constitutes 350,000,000. As such, the actual transfer value of the instant real estate is 300,000,000.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the calculation of acquisition value

In full view of each of the statements in Eul evidence 2-1, 2, 3, and 4, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate in KRW 10,00,000, inasmuch as the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax on the instant real estate on January 27, 200 by stating the transfer value of the said real estate in KRW 110,00,000, and the Plaintiff’s real estate sales contract, which the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax and submitted to the Defendant as above, may be recognized as having affixed the seals on the real estate sales contract, which the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant while filing the transfer income tax, barring any special circumstances.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff asserts that the real estate sales contract, which was submitted by the Plaintiff at the time when the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax, was made by falsity, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the real estate sales contract was made by means of a false document, and that the document No. 8, and No. 3 was written on January 18, 2000 by the date on which the Plaintiff prepared the real estate sales contract, which was submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of filing the transfer income tax return, was written differently from January 2, 200, which is the date of the registration date indicated in the certified copy of the real estate register of this case, and that the above real estate sales contract stated that the deposit should be deducted from the balance of the real estate, while paying the price in lump sum. However, considering the above circumstances alone, it cannot be readily concluded that the above sales contract, on which the Plaintiff and the seal of the Plaintiff affixed, was made by falsity.

Therefore, the instant disposition, which was determined as the transfer value of the said real estate, entered in the report of the transfer income tax on the instant real estate by the HuA, and as the acquisition value of the said real estate by the Plaintiff, is lawful.

2) Determination on the computation of transfer value

In full view of the purport of each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7, the plaintiff prepared a sales contract stating that the plaintiff would sell the real estate of this case to 350,000,000 won between HongB on April 10, 2006, and the plaintiff prepared a confirmation statement that the plaintiff sold the real estate of this case to 350,000,000 won on July 3, 2007. The fact that the plaintiff reported the transfer income tax on the real estate of this case and stated the transfer value of the above real estate in 350,000,000 won is as seen earlier, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff sold the real estate of this case to HongB for 350,00,000 won.

The Plaintiff sold the instant real estate in KRW 300,000,000, and the Plaintiff asserted that the transfer value at the time of filing a transfer income tax return with the knowledge of non-taxation subject to transfer income tax, was stated 350,000,000, and thus, it is difficult to believe it in light of the following: (a) witness Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2-1, and witness evidence No. 2; and (b) witness evidence Nos. 1, 2-2; and (c) the Plaintiff’s testimony to sell the instant real estate in KRW 300,000,000; (b) the Plaintiff did not submit a real estate sales contract corresponding thereto; and (c) there is no evidence to acknowledge

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate on the premise that the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate in KRW 350,000,000.

3. Conclusion

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