early trial 2013west 3505 ( December 23, 2013)

Disposition based on the acquisition price by considering the actual transaction price is legitimate.

If the transfer of assets is made by payment in kind, the original obligation shall be deemed the actual transaction value (transfer value or acquisition value) of the assets, and such acquisition value shall be calculated based on the payment in kind.

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act, Article 114 of the Income Tax Act

2014Gudan439 Disposition of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

leAA

Director of the District Office

May 30, 2014

July 11, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On March 1, 2013, the defendant revoked the imposition of the capital gains tax OOO(including additional tax) against the plaintiff on March 1, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. On February 11, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired OO-dong 46-1 BB 502 (hereinafter referred to as "the instant real estate") from CC Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "CC Construction"), but transferred the instant real estate to EXD on December 5, 201," and (b) on December 29, 2012, the Plaintiff calculated the acquisition value of the instant real estate as the Defendant was unclear, and filed a transfer income tax on the basis of the conversion value as the O-O value. However, the Defendant conducted a field investigation on the Plaintiff’s report, and reported the transfer income tax on the basis that the acquisition value of the instant real estate was unclear, the Plaintiff was the acquisition value of the instant real estate, including the OO-O-mortgage and the O-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-backed acquisition value, and included the additional tax for the Plaintiff on March 11, 2013.

C. On March 23, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition, but was dismissed. On July 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, which was dismissed on December 23, 2013.

Facts without any dispute, Gap 2, 3, and Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

On October 18, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for additional construction works on March 19, 2003: (a) the construction cost was increased or changed to OOO(Separate No. Addition); (b) the construction cost was paid on January 7, 2004; (c) the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of the construction cost that was paid on five occasions; and (d) the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order on October 10, 2003 by using OOOOO as the claim amount of the construction cost; and (e) the Plaintiff did not clarify that the Plaintiff acquired the outstanding amount of the construction cost that was paid by OOO on February 11, 2004 and the additional construction cost of the instant real estate that was paid by OOOO as the acquisition price of the instant real estate that was paid by the Plaintiff in lieu of the acquisition price of the instant real estate that was found to be unlawful.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) A contract between the Plaintiff andCC Construction

① On October 18, 2002, the Plaintiff, who was awarded a contract for creative and interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration from theCC Construction, increased and changed to the OOOO on March 19, 2003, and the name of the contractor of each of the above contracts was Nonparty DD C&C rather than theCC Construction.

② The Plaintiff drawn up a contract on January 7, 2004, stating that the work price OOO(excluding additional tax) and the special engineer’s claim are included in the amount of payment in lieu of the instant real estate.

(2) Plaintiff’s value-added tax return

① The Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for the supply value OOO on D&C at two years in 2002 and one year in 2003, and filed a value-added tax return for this.

② As regards the OOO (excluding surtax) claimed by the Plaintiff, the taxable period was from April 1, 2004 to June 30, 2004, the final return of value-added tax was filed for the first time in 2004; and (3) the decision of provisional attachment by the Plaintiff.

① On October 10, 2003, the Plaintiff provisionally seized No. 15 BB (No. 101, 102, 103, 201, 202, 203, 301, 302, 303, 401, 402, 403, 501, 502, 503, 503) including the instant real estate as an OOO, but all of the provisional seizure was released on May 15, 204.

② On December 15, 2004, the Plaintiff newly seized six units (302, 303, 401, 402, and 501), including BB 301 on December 15, 2004, as the claimed amount of OO.

(4) Approval seal contract and purchase price on the plaintiff's confirmation document

① The sales price of the instant real estate prepared by the Plaintiff at the time of the transfer registration is an OO of the sales price under the approval form contract.

② On January 11, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared a confirmation document as follows to the public officials belonging to the Defendant, who conduct an on-site investigation of capital gains tax.

In February 2004, the above principal entered into a wood hold subcontract contract on the BB apartment located in BB located in 86-1 O-Gu O-dong O-dong 86-1, and he did not receive the price of supplied goods even though he completed construction and supply, he acquired 502 No. 102 to OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O

(5) The filing of civil action againstCC Construction

On May 15, 2006,CC Construction filed a lawsuit claiming compensation for delay against the Plaintiff on May 15, 2006, Seoul East Eastern District Court 2006Gahap6636, and withdrawn on December 19, 2006. The details of the complaint were determined as the construction contract amount amount to the Plaintiff, the construction period from October 18, 2002 to May 7, 2003, and subcontracted the household construction work with the amount equivalent to 0.1% of the contract amount per day (0.1% of the contract amount per day). However, since the Plaintiff was unable to sell the apartment after completion of the construction work around July 19, 2004, the Plaintiff paid the construction price by transferring the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and giving payment in kind. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is liable for delay compensation (OO contracts amount xO00 x 401% and delay damages x 438% of the contract amount).

Facts without any dispute arising in recognition, Gap 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 6-1, 6-2, and Eul 2 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. Determination

(1) The payment in kind means that the real estate is transferred at a cost and is paid at a cost when another performance is actually provided in lieu of the original obligation. As such, if the transfer of the asset is made by payment in kind, the original obligation shall be considered as the actual transaction value of the asset in question (transfer value or acquisition value), and such acquisition value shall be calculated at the time of payment in kind.

In addition, barring any special circumstance, the seal of approval signed by the parties to a transaction and affixed with the seal of approval of the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall be presumed to have been prepared in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, and the assertion that the contract was prepared differently from the actual ones shall be proved (Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2353 delivered on April 9, 1993)

(2) According to the following circumstances revealed in light of the facts acknowledged earlier, the acquisition value at the time the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate appears to be an OOO of the total amount of the outstanding claim for the construction cost and the secured debt OOO of the collateral security right, even after examining all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the above additional construction cost is included in the above substitute payment value, and further, it does not constitute a case where the actual acquisition value is unclear and thus, the acquisition value should be calculated based on the conversion value. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful.

① The Plaintiff entered the approval certificate form and the certificate (No. 2) signed and submitted to the Defendant on the acquisition value of the instant real estate in a total of two times, but the transfer income tax was corrected and imposed, the Plaintiff reversed the purchase price it entered, and there is no reason to reverse the said amount.

② The secured collateral obligation of the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate as collateral is an OOO won if the acquisition value of the Plaintiff, which was stated two times in the approval seal agreement and the confirmation document, is combined with that of the OO won.

③ The date of the preparation of the additional construction contract submitted by the Plaintiff is indicated as the date of January 7, 2004, but it is difficult to believe the date of the preparation of the said additional construction contract as it is, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff did not include the additional construction cost in the purchase price on February 12, 2004 under the seal of approval agreement received by the Plaintiff on February 12, 2004; (b) the Plaintiff reported the tax period for the construction cost due to the additional construction contract from April 1, 2004 to June 30; and (c) the Plaintiff provisionally seized six real estate including BB 301 on December 15, 2004 as the claimed amount as an OO.

④ In the lawsuit for the payment of damages for delay filed against the Plaintiff on May 15, 2006, the OOOE claimed byCC Construction as the construction cost is not included in the additional construction cost claimed by the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.