Early High Court Decision 201J 1970 ( October 15, 2011)

The application of conversion values is legitimate because it is not possible to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition.

The case where it is impossible to verify the actual transaction price in light of the fact that the actual transaction price cannot be verified in light of the fact that the actual transaction price increase rate is less than half of the increase rate of the officially assessed individual land price at the time of acquisition and transfer, etc.

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act

2011Guhap12406 Revocation of Disposition rejecting an application for capital gains tax rectification

Hongx

The superintendent of the tax office

April 13, 2012

May 25, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff answers the costs of lawsuit.

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on March 3, 201 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 27, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased 19,624m2 from the LA to purchase the Y 00-0m2 m2 from the Y Y Y YA, the Plaintiff, on February 6, 2009, owned the instant land by dividing it into 00-0m2,876m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) and 00-0 m26,748m2 of the same Ri, and on May 27, 2009, sold the instant land to the rightB, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 31, 2010, and paid the transfer income tax for the Defendant in 2009, which is the converted amount based on the standard market price.

B. After December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for a reduction or correction of capital gains tax by asserting that the portion exceeding a reasonable tax amount should be refunded, as the actual acquisition value of the instant land is KRW 000, but the Defendant rejected the request on March 3, 201, on the ground that there is insufficient evidence proving the real acquisition value of the instant land (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 18, 2011, but on July 7, 2011.

15. The above claim was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In full view of the data submitted by the Plaintiff and the current status of real estate market values at the time of transaction, the actual acquisition value of the instant land was sufficiently proven. However, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for reduction or correction on the ground that there is insufficient proof on real acquisition value is unlawful

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 97(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009) provides that “The acquisition value, which is necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value of a resident, shall, in principle, be based on the actual transaction price required for acquisition. In exceptional cases where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition, the acquisition value shall be based on the transaction example, appraisal value or conversion value prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Under Articles 163(12) and 176-2(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034 of Feb. 18, 2010), where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition, the converted value, which is the basis of the acquisition value, means the amount calculated by dividing the actual transaction price at the time of transfer, transaction example, or appraisal value at the time of acquisition by the standard market price at the time of transfer.”

(2) Based on the above legal principle, as to whether the amount reported by the Plaintiff as the acquisition price of the instant land at the time of the said request for reduction or correction can be recognized as the actual transaction price, the following circumstances are acknowledged as follows: (i) evidence Nos. 2-1 through 3, evidence Nos. 5, and evidence Nos. 3-2, and evidence Nos. 5, and evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including paper numbers) are not submitted as to the purchase price paid by the Plaintiff while acquiring the instant land; (ii) evidence Nos. 1, 208, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land on Dec. 8, 2008; (iii) evidence No. 1, a maximum amount of 00 won of the purchase price of the instant land at the time of the Plaintiff’s request for reduction or correction, which is difficult to recognize as the transfer price increase of KRW 40,000,000,000,000 per piece of land at the time of acquisition.

(3) Therefore, since the acquisition price of the instant land constitutes a case where it cannot be objectively recognized or confirmed the actual transaction price, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for reduction or correction of capital gains tax is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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