The amount indicated in the sales contract of this case, which is a disposal document, shall be the acquisition value.

The sales contract of this case, which is a disposal document, clearly states the acquisition value of the real estate of this case as KRW 1.75 billion, and the acquisition value of the real estate of this case is KRW 1.75 billion.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses of Capital Gains)

2016Gudan67144 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

@@세무서장

on October 25, 2017

on October 30, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 169,242,950 for the Plaintiff on March 18, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 30, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired, from BB on September 30, 2003, 00, 000-00, 369.9 square meters, five-story neighborhood living facilities and multi-household dwelling facilities and multi-household housing 824.19 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and reported the transfer income tax with the acquisition value of 2.4 billion won after transferring it to 3.5 billion won on March 31, 2015.

B. On March 24, 2016, the Defendant considered the acquisition value of the instant real estate as KRW 1.75 billion and imposed KRW 205,284,170 on the Plaintiff in March 24, 2016, but imposed KRW 36,041,220 by reducing or correcting KRW 169,242,950 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition of this case”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 17, 2016, but was dismissed on September 30, 2016.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, 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

On June 27, 2003, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from BB in KRW 2.4 billion, and paid as a check the down payment of KRW 200 million, and delivered as a promissory note an intermediate payment of KRW 650 million. The remainder of KRW 1.50 million is paid KRW 87,50,000 in balance remaining after deducting KRW 862,450,000 from a lease deposit. However, upon BB’s request, the Plaintiff entered the sales contract in KRW 1.75,50,000 in the sales contract. Accordingly, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, namely, the instant sales contract, which is a disposal document, clearly states that the acquisition value of the instant real estate is KRW 1.75 billion, and if the Plaintiff prepared a multilateral contract with BB at the time, it would be deemed that there is a sales contract with the purchase price of KRW 2.4 billion. There is no evidence related thereto. The Plaintiff prepared and prepared a confirmation document that the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate at the time of investigating the transfer value of BB, which is the former owner of the instant real estate, to an investigating official, with the acquisition value of KRW 1.755 million, considering all the circumstances, including: (a) the acquisition value of the instant real estate is KRW 1.755 million; and (b) the written evidence of KRW 8,99, 11, and 200, as well as the witness’s testimony at the time of investigating the transfer value of BB, it is insufficient to reverse the recognition.

3. Conclusion

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