Seoul Administrative Court-2013-Gu Group-23402 ( October 27, 2014)

It is difficult to regard the transfer value of the seal of approval as the transfer value of the buyer's statement and the buyer's transfer price to a third party after one month.

It is difficult to regard the amount of the Plaintiff’s seal of approval as the actual transaction price considering the consistent contents of the buyer’s statement on the date of contract and the method of paying the down payment as the price transferred to the third

Article 114 of the Income Tax Act

Seoul High Court-2014-Nu-56538 ( December 10, 2014)

Shipping 00

O Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court-2013-Gu Group-23402 ( October 27, 2014)

October 29, 2014

December 10, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance.

2. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax***,***,647 won (including additional tax) against the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment below on the plaintiff's assertion that is especially emphasized or re-emphasized by this court, and therefore, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The actual transaction value of the instant land 1) is *9 million as stated in the seal of approval agreement, and the instant disposition that assumes that the actual land transaction value of the instant land is *32 million won based on false statements, such as gambling0 to reduce one’s capital gains tax, is unlawful.

B. Determination

In full view of the evidence adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following circumstances, i.e., ① the Plaintiff filed a transfer income tax report on the instant land *9 million with an approval seal agreement attached to the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 19 million to Kimhee. However, according to the Plaintiff’s statement in the process of investigation into the sale and purchase of the instant land, the Plaintiff can recognize the fact that the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to Park 00, etc. and transferred the instant land to Kim 00 again. In this regard, the content of the above contract appears to be different from the facts, ② the Plaintiff appears to have avoided the investigation during the investigation process, ② the Plaintiff made a false statement to the effect that he did not know about Park 00,000, and ③ according to the original report of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was merely obtained transfer margin of KRW 100,000 during the resale process of the instant land, which was engaged in brokerage and lease of real estate, and the Plaintiff’s content of the instant real estate in light of the circumstances surrounding the instant real estate price width of real estate in the instant land.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to specifically state the facts and find contradictions with each other, it is deemed to be reliable. ④ In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff appears to have reported the transfer value differently from the fact in the process of reporting the transfer income tax related to other real estate than the instant land, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax on the basis of false data despite the transfer of the instant land to Park 00,000,000 won **2 billion, etc.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.