Whether the actual transfer value is much the transfer value

In light of the business log prepared by the representative director of the Plaintiff company, the statement of the purchaser of the instant land from the Plaintiff, and the contents of the purchaser’s transfer income tax, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Article 59-2 of the Corporate Tax Act

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 646,215,730 (including special surtax 317,164,520) of corporate tax for the business year 1996 against the Plaintiff on July 4, 2005 and KRW 89,009,030 of corporate tax for the business year 1997 (including special surtax 317,164,520) shall be revoked (it appears to be erroneous on July 4, 2005 as indicated in the first record for preparatory pleadings on January 16, 2007).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was a corporation established on April 12, 1984 for the purpose of running civil engineering, construction, electrical construction business, etc., and filed a business registration report on March 23, 1985, but was closed on July 28, 200 due to business depression.

B. On May 16, 1996, the Plaintiff transferred to ○○○ on ○○, ○○○-dong 508-6 Forest land, 180-24 forest land, 475 square meters, and 1,132 square meters in aggregate of 481-34 forest land and 607 square meters (hereinafter “market land”). The Plaintiff asserted that the acquisition value of each of the above land is KRW 187,780,000 in total, and the transfer value is KRW 200,000 in total, and on March 31, 1997, reported and paid the corporate tax and special surtax for the business year of 196 to the Defendant.

C. On March 4, 1997, salt ○○, who acquired the pertinent land from the Plaintiff, did not transfer the said land to ○○○ on the transfer of the said land and did not report the transfer income tax. On July 14, 1998, fixed ○○, he transferred the said land to ○○○, etc., and calculated the transfer margin on the basis of the actual transaction price (such amount as KRW 1,040,000,000, acquisition value as KRW 1,350,000,000), and reported the transfer income tax on August 31, 1998.

D. On July 4, 2005, the Defendant considered the transfer value of the Plaintiff’s land as KRW 970,000,000, not for KRW 200,000, and decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 646,215,730 (including special surtax 317,164,520) of corporate tax for the business year 1996, and determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 646,215,730 (including special surtax 317,164,520) of the deduction amount for the loss brought forward for the business year 1997 and the amount of the loss brought forward for the business year 1996, the Defendant denied KRW 161,661,00 of the deduction amount for the loss brought forward for the business year 196, and decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 89,009,030 of corporate tax for the business year 197 (hereinafter “each disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 7, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff transferred 200,000,000 won the land at issue to salt ○○ on May 2, 1996, the Defendant’s disposition imposing the corporate tax and special surtax of this case, which deemed that the Plaintiff transferred 970,000,000 won the land at issue to salt ○, was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The certificate No. 5 (written confirmation of real estate transaction) prepared by salt ○○ on March 3, 2004 stated that “the total purchase amount of KRW 970,000,000 [the total purchase amount of KRW 200,000,000, intermediate payment (bank loan), KRW 450,000,000, and the remainder amount of KRW 320,000,000,000] at the time when salt ○○ purchased the pertinent land from the Plaintiff.”

(2) On the business day prepared by ○○○○, the representative director of the Plaintiff, for the year 1995, stating that Mag○○ concluded a sales contract for the land at issue with Mag○○○○, and received 200,000,000 won and paid taxes. However, since the number of units was expressed, it stated that Mag○○ was Mag○○○’s business day of 1995.

(3) On the business log of 196 drawn up by ○○○○, in Gin○ and New interest, the following facts are stated: “The sales volume of the land at issue is KRW 900 million, total amount of 00 million, ○○○ Credit Union, ○○○○○○○○, and ○○○ Office, and the balance is deducted from the sales volume of the land at issue, but the refusal (○○○, 130, ○○, 80, 1000, including the financial institution’s obligation, was sought to purchase the land at KRW 900,000,000 including the financial institution’s obligation, but the Plaintiff appears to have demanded

(4) On July 12, 1995, on May 2, 1995, on the ground that, if ○○○, which purchased the pertinent land from the Plaintiff, invested gold 400,000,000 won to ○○○○, he may receive a total of KRW 1,70,000,000, it entered into an agreement with ○○○ on May 15, 1996, he stated that he made a provisional registration on the said land on May 29, 196.

(5) On May 9, 1997, 180, 180,000 won for the purchase price to ○○ Housing Co., Ltd. (the sale price is KRW 60,000,000,000 for the purchase price, and KRW 120,000,000 for other compensation expenses, but the above compensation money seems to have the nature of the purchase price) was sold to ○○○○○-dong, ○○-dong, 481-34, which was divided from the land.

(6) On May 16, 1996, ○○ and ○○○ drafted an agreement stating that “○○” was 60 million won for the disputed land, and that “○○” invested 40 million won each, and that “○○” was 55% and 45% of the earnings.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 7, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 8-1, 2, Eul evidence 9-12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

On May 16, 1996, when comprehensively taking account of the facts that the Plaintiff’s representative director, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to Da○○○ in 1,350,000,000 won to KRW 1,350,000,000, which was eight months prior to the transfer of the instant land to Do○○○ on March 4, 1997, including the details related to the transaction of the instant land among the business log prepared by ○○○○, which was the Plaintiff’s title of the representative director, and the content of the Plaintiff’s statement and the details of the transfer income tax, which purchased the instant land from Da○○ and Ma○○○○, which purchased the instant land from the Plaintiff, and the details of the transfer income tax, etc., on which ○○ transferred the instant land to Da○○ on the purchase price. As determined at the time of the disposition by the Defendant, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff transferred the instant

3. Conclusion

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