The legitimacy of the assertion that the amount assessed by the court’s entrustment of appraisal should be the market price

As the appraisal price of a reliable appraisal institution can be seen as 'market price', and the price does not vary even if it was based on retroactive appraisal, it is reasonable to view that the above appraisal price was appraised in an objective and reasonable manner, considering the court's result of appraisal evaluation methods and the grounds for calculating the price, etc.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 15,642,027 against the Plaintiff on September 23, 2008 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

15,645,027 Won 15,642,027 stated in the written complaint is deemed to be a clerical error of KRW 15,642,027.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2000. 12. 11. 남편인 권☆☆으로부터 서울 ★★구 ○○동 89 올림픽선수 ●●●아파트 ***동 306호(이하 '이 사건 부동산'이라고 한다)를 증여받았다가 2006. 6. 8. 추◎◎, 노����에게 15억 5,000만 원에 양도한 후 2006. 8. 31. 피고에게 양도가액을 15억 5,000만 원, 취득가액을 5억 원으로 하여 양도소득세 154,489,009원을 신고ㆍ납부하였다.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant recognized the transfer value of KRW 1.55 billion as it is. However, the acquisition value is calculated as KRW 465 million at the time of donation and additionally corrected and notified the transfer income tax of KRW 7,481,460.

C. However, it is pointed out that a Central Tax Office, which is the Defendant’s supervisory office, should apply capital gains tax to the above corrective and notification disposition by applying the standard market price of the real estate in this case, not the transaction example of the apartment subject to comparison at the time of donation. The Defendant, on September 23, 2008, calculated the acquisition value as KRW 392 million, which is the standard market price of the real estate in this case at the time of donation, in accordance with the supplementary assessment method pursuant to Article 163(9) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 61(1)2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereafter the same shall apply in this Act) and re-revision and notified the transfer income tax of KRW 15,642,027, which is the standard market price

D. On December 4, 2008, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal for the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on January 20, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] In without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 8-1, and Gap evidence No. 10

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 61(1)2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is merely a supplementary assessment method applicable to cases where it is difficult to compute the market price under Article 60(1) of the same Act as of the base date of appraisal. In this case, since there is business example of real estate similar to the real estate in this case, the acquisition value of the real estate in this case should be calculated based on the value thereof or the appraised amount by the commission of appraisal to the Dong/Dong office of the court. Thus, the instant disposition of taxation

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to whether the transaction example should be applied

Article 163 (9) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "if the acquisition value of donated assets is deducted from the transfer income, the value appraised under Articles 60 through 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as of the date of donation shall be deemed the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition." Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the value of the property on which gift tax is levied shall be deemed the current market value as of the date of donation (paragraph (1)), the market value shall be deemed to be normal if free transactions are made between many and unspecified persons, including those recognized as the market value (paragraph (2)), and where it is difficult to calculate the market value under conditions prescribed by Presidential Decree such as the expropriation and public sale price and appraisal price, it shall be deemed to be the market value (paragraph (3))." Article 49 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "in cases where the sale and purchase price of the property is determined by Presidential Decree from the date of donation to the date of expropriation and public sale (hereinafter referred to the same shall apply).

Therefore, the acquisition value of the real estate of this case should first be calculated as the market value in the case of the value recognized as the market value under Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and only in the case of the difficulty in calculating the market value, it should be calculated as the supplementary assessment method under Article 61 of the same Act. In this case, there is no transaction value recognized as the market value under Article 60

However, Article 49 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18177 of Dec. 30, 2003) provides that "if there is a transaction value, such as the sale price, etc. as provided in paragraph (1) of other properties identical or similar to the relevant property, the relevant value shall be deemed the market price under Article 60 (2) of the Act." The Addenda of the above Enforcement Decree provides that "the gift of the real estate of this case shall apply from the donation since January 1, 2004." However, the donation date of the real estate of this case cannot be calculated as similar transaction example pursuant to Article 49 (5) of the Enforcement Decree as of December 11, 200, the acquisition value of the real estate of this case cannot be calculated as similar transaction example, so the plaintiff's assertion that the acquisition value of the real estate of this case should be calculated as a similar transaction example is without merit.

(2) Determination as to whether the appraisal value as to the request for appraisal by this Court should be applied

In a case where the transfer income tax should be imposed on the donated asset based on the actual transaction value as at the time of the acquisition, even though the tax authority assessed and assessed based on the supplementary assessment method on the ground that it is difficult to assess the market value at the time of the donation of the asset, if the market value at the time of the donation of the asset was proved by the time of the conclusion of the trial in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the tax disposition, the determination of illegality of the taxation disposition should be made on the basis of the reasonable transfer margin and the tax amount calculated based on the market value, etc., and whether the tax amount of the taxation exceeds the reasonable tax amount. The "market price" in this context refers to the objective exchange price formed through a normal transaction in principle, but the concept includes the value assessed in an objective and reasonable manner. Thus, if there is no exchange price through a transaction, the appraisal price at the reliable appraisal institution can be seen as the "market price," and the value does not change even if it is verified by the retroactive appraisal

However, according to the court's entrustment of appraisal to the Youngdong Appraisal Office of this case, the market price at the time of donation of this case is 495 million won. Considering the above appraisal methods and the basis for computing the price, it is reasonable to deem that the above appraisal amount is appraised by objective and reasonable methods at the time of donation of this case. Therefore, it should be calculated as acquisition value. Thus, the disposition of this case calculated as the standard market price of the real estate in accordance with Article 61 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which is a supplementary assessment method, as the acquisition value of the real estate of this case, is unlawful,

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim for objection case is justified and it is identical to the order.

partnership.