The meaning of where the value of land, buildings, etc. is unclear;

In cases where the value of land, buildings, etc. is unclear, it is applicable even if the value of land and buildings is unclear.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

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 378,496,290 to the Plaintiff on March 9, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 3, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) the Seoul AAAAAAdong 2, the ownership of which was 94-155 square meters (i) and 555 square meters; (b) the same 94-157 square meters and 258 square meters (ii); (c) the same 28-127 square meters and 357 square meters (iii) the same 28-147 square meters and 136 square meters (4 square meters) of the same 28-147 and 136 square meters; (d) the total amount of 1,306 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case") and 306 square meters of the land (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case, etc.") calculated on the basis of the total purchase price of 9.5 billion won (9.3 billion won of the price of each land of this case; and (d) the transfer price of each land of this case and 9.3 billion won of each transfer value of each land of this case to the Defendant.

B. However, the defendant thereafter reported the amount calculated by multiplying the area of each land of this case by the standard market price as the transfer price of each land of this case, on the ground that the land of this case falls under one of the land for non-business use (60% of the transfer rate), the officially assessed individual land price is higher than the other land, and the transfer price of each land of this case by the land of this case falls under the case where the classification of the value of land and buildings stipulated in Article 100 (2) of the Income Tax Act is unclear, etc., and thus the transfer price of each land of this case should be calculated in proportion to the amount calculated according to the standard market price of each land of this case, the transfer price of each land of this case shall be calculated in proportion to the amount calculated by multiplying the area of each land of this case by the standard market price (in this case, the transfer price of the land of this case shall be 5,314,732,978 won). Based on this calculation, on March 9, 2009, it additionally corrected the plaintiff's disposition of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Article 100(2) of the Income Tax Act applies only to the case where the classification of the value between the land and the building is unclear, and even if the provision applies in this case where the classification between the land of several parcels is unclear, it is unlawful to calculate and impose the transfer income tax by using the amount calculated by multiplying the area by the standard market price by the land of this case by applying the above provision, considering that the distinction between the value between each land of this case is unclear by analogy and expanded interpretation of the above provision, and by applying the above provision.

(2) However, in light of the land category and use, location and shape of each of the instant lands, the circumstances of the sales contract, and the parties’ intent at the time, etc., each of the instant lands did not constitute a case in which the classification of value by each of the instant lands is unclear, even though each of the instant lands does not constitute a case in which the classification of value by each of the instant lands is unclear, the instant disposition imposed by applying Article 100(2) of the Income Tax Act is unlawful

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to the plaintiff's above (1) proposal

Article 100 (2) of the Income Tax Act provides that "where the land and a building are acquired or transferred together, it shall be calculated in accordance with Presidential Decree in consideration of the standard market price at the time of acquisition or transfer, etc. If the distinction between the value of the land and a building is unclear, it shall be calculated in accordance with Presidential Decree." Article 166 (6) of the Enforcement Decree provides that "where the distinction between the value of the land and a building is unclear, it shall be calculated in accordance with the proviso of Article 48-2 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act." All of the above provisions use the expression "land and a building", and it seems that "land and a building are transferred collectively, as well as the case where "land and a building" are transferred collectively, it is assumed that the above provision is applied, and it is difficult to interpret that the actual transaction price of the land and a building, etc. can be calculated in a rational way if the difference between the actual transaction price of the land and the building is unclear, and it is difficult to interpret the acquisition value of each of the land at the time of transfer.

(2) Judgment as to the plaintiff's above (2) proposal

In full view of the records and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the non-party company on October 19, 2007 as to each of the instant land, buildings, etc., and entered into a sales contract with the non-party company, and entered into the total purchase price of KRW 9.5 billion (the contract amount of KRW 2 billion shall be paid on January 3, 2008 at the time of the contract, the balance of KRW 7.5 billion shall be paid on January 3, 2008). Among them, the sales price of each of the instant land shall be KRW 9.99 billion at the time of the contract, and the sales price of the buildings, etc. shall be KRW 1.10 million at the time of the contract, and the sales price of each of the instant land shall be KRW 1.2 million at the time of the transfer, but the other land among each of the instant land constitutes non-business land adjacent to the road, and the officially assessed land price at the time of transfer shall be KRW 4.2 million at the same time.

As above, as long as the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract by designating only the overall value of each of the lands of this case without classifying the sales price of each of the lands of this case as a whole while transferring each of the lands of this case collectively, and as long as the difference between the actual usage and standard market price of each of the lands of this case is considerable, it shall be deemed that the sale price of each of the lands of this case falls under the case where the classification of the value is unclear from a third party or the tax authority. Even if the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff transferred each of the lands of this case to a group of lands of this case, determined the sales price of the entire lands of this case with the usual value of the lands of this case, unless the above contents are specified in the sales contract, etc., it shall be limited to internal deliberation in a convenient way to determine the total sales price, and it shall be separately entered in the case where the land of this case is acquired or transferred along with the land of this case, etc. under Article 100 (2) of the Income Tax

Therefore, there is no reason for this part of the assertion premised on the fact that the transfer value of each land of this case falls under clear cases.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.