The fact that even the purchase price in a seal of approval contract is presumed to have been prepared in accordance with the contract, except in special circumstances.

Although a certified judicial scrivener did not file a complaint for forgery of a private document, in light of the fact that the former seller reported the transfer income tax to the tax office based on the seal of approval agreement, etc., the disposition to calculate the transfer income tax by deeming the purchase price as the actual transaction price under the seal of approval agreement is legitimate.

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income)

Article 100 of the Income Tax Act [Calculation of Gains on Transfer]

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 capital gains tax of KRW 58,420,70 against the Plaintiff on July 31, 2007 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 24, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired a female house (the real estate of this case) with ○○○○○○○○ Do 823 located in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, ○○○○○○○ Do, 823, from a milk minute, and used 2,333,573,464 won as income tax when transferring 645,00,000 won to Lee Jae-in on December 20, 206, and paid 33,573,464 won as income tax. The Plaintiff calculated the transfer value as 40,840,01 won for one household for the second and third floors as stated in attached Form 1, and converted the transfer value to 235,756,748 won as stated in attached Form 3.

B. On October 12, 2001, the U.S. portion is calculated as KRW 400,840,01, and the acquisition value is calculated as KRW 64,530,427 as shown in attached Form 2, and the capital gains tax is additionally notified to the Plaintiff on October 12, 2001.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Eul evidence No. 1 to 4 (including a serial number), the purport of pleading

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is merely a false entry of KRW 103,00,00,000, which is 102,586,640,000, which is a standard market price of local tax imposed by a certified judicial scrivener, into the purchase price. Accordingly, the actual transaction price should not be calculated. If the real transaction price is lost and the acquisition price based on the actual transaction price is not known due to the loss of the real transaction price, it is reasonable to impose capital gains tax on the actual transaction price at the time of transfer as the acquisition price divided by the ratio of the standard market price at the time of transfer. Even though it is not domestic affairs, as long as a tax investigation on the plaintiff was commenced due to the authenticity of the informant that the real estate in this case was traded in 21,000 or 220,000, the above amount should be calculated as acquisition price,

(b) Related statutes;

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act

Article 114 of the Income Tax Act

C. Determination

Unless there are special circumstances, the stamp contract prepared by the parties to the transaction and affixed the seal of approval of the head of the Si/Gun, etc. shall be presumed to have been prepared in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, and it shall be proved by the claimant that the contract was prepared differently from the actual ones (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2353, Apr. 9, 193). As long as it seems to conform to the plaintiff's assertion that the stamp contract of this case was forged, the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 did not file a complaint against the relevant certified judicial scrivener for the crime of forging a private document, and the defendant's report of transfer of real estate was completed on the basis of the ○○, etc. on the basis of this, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

In addition, the plaintiff's assertion that since the defendant is not bound by the details of the reporter's information, the acquisition price of KRW 220,000,000 shall be determined as KRW 220,000,000 for each page of KRW 10,00

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case, which calculated capital gains tax by deeming the purchase price under the approval agreement as the acquisition price based on the actual transaction price, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.