It is reasonable to view that the actual transaction price at the time of the purchase of the instant land is 8.80 million won as stated in the above sales contract.

It is reasonable to deem that the actual transaction price at the time of the purchase of the instant land is 880 million won as stated in the above sales contract, and there is no evidence to deem that the land was purchased at

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act

2016Nu61527 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Song AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

May 10, 2017

June 14, 2017

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 398,281,180 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on January 1, 2015 is revoked in excess of KRW 326,502,687.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. 4/5 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition to impose capital gains tax of KRW 398,281,180 (including additional tax) for the plaintiff on January 1, 2015 (the "statement on January 5, 2015" appears to be clerical error in the complaint and the petition of appeal) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The reasons why the court shall explain this part are either dismissed or added as follows:

Except for the corresponding portion of the judgment of the court of first instance, the meaning of the language to be used in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter the same shall apply to the judgment of the court of first instance) is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

○ The second fifth page " January 5, 2015" is isolated as " January 1, 2015," and "the real estate of this case" as "the land of this case".

Pursuant to the second 7th chapter, the phrase "if it is deemed improper" shall be deemed "if it is not possible to confirm the actual transaction price, it shall be deemed "if it is not possible to confirm the actual transaction price", and the phrase "398,281,180 won" of the 9th action shall be added "(including additional tax)."

○ 13 to 14 pages 2 are added to “A evidence 4”.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The court's explanation of this part of the judgment of the first instance (No. 2, 17 of the judgment of the second instance)

Since it is the same as the entry from the third to the first place, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 1 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Whether the actual transaction price at the time of acquiring the instant land is recognized

A) Sales contract for acquisition and transfer by a taxpayer as documentary evidence related to the actual transaction price

In a case where a transaction certificate and a certificate of seal impression of a contracting party were submitted, the tax authority shall calculate gains on transfer based on the actual transaction price under each of the above sales contracts, barring special circumstances, such as that each of the above sales contracts was prepared differently from the actual transaction price. In such a case, the tax authority shall prove that such special circumstances exist (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu3183, Jun. 25, 1996; 200Du6459, May 28, 2002).

B) In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 5, it is acknowledged that the purchase price of the land of this case under the sales contract prepared at the time of purchase from ParkCC on November 18, 2003 is KRW 8,80,000,000,000. In full view of the following facts and circumstances, it is recognized that the actual transaction price at the time of purchase of the land of this case was KRW 3,11,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00.

(1) A sales contract (No. 5) submitted by a plaintiff as evidential documents on the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition.

Each receipt (Evidence A No. 8) on the sales contract of this case and the down payment, intermediate payment, and remainder payment (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case") is not particularly exceptional.

② In light of the fact that “the purchaser shall submit a certificate of fact to the seller with the amount of tax reported to him/her at his/her request.” In violation of the contract, the transfer value of KRW 4,90,000,000 reported by the transferor is considerably lower than the actual transaction value.”

③ Under the instant sales contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 50 million on the date of the contract, and the intermediate payment of KRW 400 million on the date of November 18, 2003, and the intermediate payment of KRW 430 million on December 18, 2003, and the remainder of KRW 430 million on January 19, 2004, respectively. The buyer and the two other parties and the buyer’s agents are the maximum E. The receipts of KRW 50 million on November 18, 2003, as to the down payment of KRW 50,00,00,000, are drafted in the ED’s agent, and the intermediate payment of KRW 430,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00.

④ Of seven copies of the cashier’s checks submitted by the Plaintiff for the intermediate payment of the instant land, three copies of KRW 10,000,000,000 were issued on November 26, 2003, 10,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00.

⑤ On the other hand, on January 19, 2004, the remaining amount of KRW 430,000,000 stated as “the loan of KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW 196,60,000,000 for the loan of KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW 4760,000 for the loan of KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW 1966,000 for the loan of KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW 430,000 for the loan of KRW KRW KRW KRW 430,000 for the loan of KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW 460,00 for the loan of KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW 1966,00,00 for the loan of KRW KRW KRW KRW 360,000 for the loan of KRW KRW KRW 364,000,000 for the loan of KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW KRW 36364,25,204,006.

④ At the time of November 18, 2003, the lowest EE, a purchaser’s agent under the instant sales contract, prepared and submitted to the court of first instance a confirmation document that it participated in the sales contract of the instant land with the name of SongD’s vice deposit. At that time, SongD was in office as an auditor of the Rad hotel, and the highest EE was in office as a director of the said company. At that time, the representative director of the said company was the Plaintiff’s mother, who acquired the instant land together with the Plaintiff.

C) Therefore, the acquisition value of the instant land is KRW 880,000,000 for the said actual transaction value.

Therefore, the transfer margin should be calculated on the basis of this.

(ii)the calculation of a reasonable amount of tax;

The acquisition value of shares 878.4/1,464 acquired by the Plaintiff among the land in this case shall be the land in this case.

If the amount of tax is calculated according to the statement in subparagraph 1 (Article 878.4/1, 464) of B, which is the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share, out of the above actual transaction price of KRW 880 million (including KRW 880 million x 878.4/1, 464), the amount of tax for capital gains tax for the year 2009 for the Plaintiff shall be 326,502,687 (including additional tax), such as the statement in the column for the calculation of the amount of justifiable tax for the attached Table 2.

C. Therefore, the part exceeding KRW 326,502,687 of the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed for lack of merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance partially accepted the plaintiff's appeal and it has different conclusions, the part against the plaintiff falling under the part against which the cancellation is ordered under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the part exceeding 326,502,687 of the disposition of this case shall be revoked, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff shall be dismissed for lack of good cause. It is so decided as per Disposition.