Whether the transfer value of the right to sell has been underreported

If money has been paid to a seller of the right of sale, it is reasonable to view that the money has been transferred to the seller, barring any special circumstances, and thus, a disposition imposed on the seller by deeming the money as the return of transfer value is legitimate.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act [Transfer Value]

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 KRW 48,05,410 on November 16, 2006 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

In full view of the purport of the arguments in the statements Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 2, 5-2, and 1, 5-2 of Gap, the defendant may recognize the fact that the plaintiff did not impose and notify the transfer income tax 48, 05, 410 won on Sep. 16, 2006 on the plaintiff on Sep. 16, 2006 on the ground that the plaintiff acquired the right of sale of 00 ○○○○○○○○○○○○ 00,000, Seoul ○○○○○○ 000,000 won for premium (hereinafter referred to as the "right of sale in this case") from ○○○ 2,000,000 won for premium, and sold it to Park○ ○ 100,000 won for capital gains, but did not report the income.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case, which reported that 100 million won was received from 100 million won at the time of selling the right to sell the right to sell the right to sell the right to sell the right to sell the right to sell the right to sell the right to sell the right to sell the right to sell the right to sell the right to sell the right to sell the right to sell the right, was unlawful.

B. Determination

The fact that the Plaintiff acquired the instant sales slip under the condition that the Plaintiff paid the sales price and the premium of KRW 20 million in advance, which was in the status of paying KRW 101,950,000 among the sales price, on or around September 18, 2003, on the condition that the Plaintiff paid the sales price and the premium of KRW 20,000,000, and sold

However, the plaintiff alleged that the premium received at the time of selling the right to sell the instant case to Park Jong-bong was in full KRW 20 million, and it was not received KRW 100 million other than that, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff was paid KRW 120 million including the above KRW 20 million as the premium at the time of selling the right to sell the instant case, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff was paid KRW 120 million including the above KRW 20 million as the premium at the time of selling the right to sell the instant case. Therefore, we examine how much the

The above evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 4-1, 1, 5-2, 3-1, 2-1, 2-2, 1-2, 2-2 of 1, and 1-2 of 1, and 1-2 of 1000 million won of 100 million won of 100 million won of 200 million won of 100 million won of 100 million won of 200 million won of 100 million won of 1000 won of 200 million won of 200 million won of 1000 won of 2000 won of 100 won of 2000 won of 200 million won of 200 million won of 200 million won of 1,000 won of 200 won of 200 won of 3,000 won of 1,000 won of 200 won of 200 won of 200 million won of 3.

3. Conclusion

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