The submission of evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the real acquisition value.

The fact-finding confirmation and witness testimony are the contents of the statement at the present point of time 25 years from the time of acquisition, and it is difficult to easily believe, unless there is any objective evidence supporting its credibility, so it is difficult to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition of the land in this case.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income)

2016Gudan1660 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Transfer Income Tax

Park ○

Head of the Do Tax Office

March 17, 2017

April 18, 2017

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 74,58,510 for the Plaintiff on March 4, 2015 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 9, 1989, the Plaintiff, the former husband, donated the Gu Ri (hereinafter referred to as the “Gu Ri”) 00,000 Myeon Ri (hereinafter referred to as the “Gu Ri”) ** 14,975 m2 (hereinafter referred to as the “Gu Ri”) of forests and fields, and divorced on January 15, 1990.

B. On April 25, 2002, the forest before subdivision divided was divided into 13,845 square meters of the forest* 13,845 square meters of the forest and Gu **-1,130 square meters of the forest and Gu ** Gu 13,845 square meters of the forest and Gu ** 13,845 square meters of the Gu Y***********-4 forest and Gu 13,67 square meters of the forest and Gu 10, July 30, 2010 after the registration conversion into *****-4 forest and 9,850 square meters of the forest (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) and Gu ***-5 forest and 817 square meters of the forest.

C. On March 12, 2014, the Plaintiff sold the instant land in KRW 1.7 billion to BB, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said land on June 10, 2014.

D. The Plaintiff filed a transfer income tax on KRW 217,061,769 with the acquisition value of the instant land as KRW 217,061,769. However, the Defendant deemed that the actual acquisition value of the instant land has not been verified by objective evidence and that the acquisition value should be calculated according to the conversion value, and thus, the Defendant imposed KRW 74,58,510 on the Plaintiff on March 4, 2015, by applying KRW 524,74,744,00, which is the larger amount between the conversion value and the estimated deduction amount and the transfer cost pursuant to the proviso of Article 97(2)2 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 18, 2015, but was dismissed on February 4, 2016.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, while divorced with Jeong, who is the former husband, received consolation money of KRW 350 million. Among them, KRW 20 million was paid in cash, and the remainder KRW 330 million was acquired by transfer of forest land including the instant land through payment in kind. As such, the actual acquisition value of the instant land is KRW 217,061,769 (=30,000,000 + KRW 9850 square meters/975 square meters). Accordingly, the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) In calculating gains on transfer of land, the acquisition value shall be the actual transaction value incurred in the acquisition of such assets.

However, 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 prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Article 97 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act), and where it is impossible to recognize or confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of the relevant assets by the account books or other evidentiary documents due to the reasons prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment may make a decision or correction by making an estimated investigation according to the transaction example value, appraisal value, conversion value, or

Accordingly, Article 176-2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act where the acquisition value of land is determined or revised by estimation, 1.

(2) The appraisal value is determined by applying the method of the standard market price in order, such as the actual transaction price at the time of transfer, the transaction example price at the time of transfer x the standard market price at the time of transfer / the standard market price at the time of transfer / 4) and the method of the standard market price.

2) Examining the instant case, the Plaintiff’s actual transaction value at the time of acquiring the instant land

evidence filed by asserting that the evidence is acceptable, there is a testimony in this Court of Justice in the certificate of fact (Evidence A 2), the gift contract (Evidence A 3), and the witness A. However, the gift contract shall be

There is no indication on the acquisition value of the land in this case, and it is difficult to easily believe that the confirmation document and statutory testimony at the time of 25 years from the date of acquisition are the contents of the statement at the time of the acquisition, and there is no objective evidence supporting its credibility. Therefore, it constitutes a case where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of the land in this case, and there is no transaction example or appraisal value within 3 months before and after the date of acquisition, and thus, the disposition in this case, which

3. Conclusion

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