Seocho 208west 3634 (Ob. 26, 2009)

Actual acquisition value of transferred real estate;

In light of the fact that the acquisition value was reduced, however, the real acquisition value is considered to fall under the actual acquisition value in light of the fact that the Plaintiff submitted the rental-related loan obligations and the sales amount paid in cash to the transferor at the time of filing a transfer income tax

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

Hu○ ○

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 93,404,220 for the Plaintiff on May 7, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. On July 13, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired and owned ○○○○○○-dong 144-17 site and its ground house (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from HuA, and transferred the instant real estate to GaB (hereinafter “instant transfer”) around March 20, 202.

B. On March 22, 2002, the Plaintiff calculated gains from transfer with the transfer value of KRW 515 million, and the acquisition value of KRW 480 million, based on the actual transaction value, and voluntarily paid the transfer income tax to the Defendant after filing a prior report of KRW 4903,895.

C. After that, the transferee ParkB reported the purchase price of the instant real estate as KRW 645 million upon transferring the instant real estate and reporting the transfer income tax, the transfer price of the instant real estate was KRW 645 million.

D. Accordingly, on May 7, 2008, the Defendant calculated the transfer price of KRW 645 million, and calculated the transfer price of KRW 480 million with the acquisition price of KRW 480 million. On May 7, 2008, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing a correction and notification of the transfer income tax for the year 2002 as KRW 93,404,220.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether a disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from HuA in KRW 598 million, but prepared a sales contract stating the purchase price as KRW 480 million, which is lower than the actual acquisition price, according to the practice at that time. As such, the transfer price difference in the instant case should be calculated with KRW 598 million, which is the actual acquisition price. However, the instant disposition imposing the instant real estate, premised on the premise that the Defendant’s acquisition price of the instant real estate is KRW 480 million, is unlawful, contrary to the principle of substantial taxation.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1)A house among the instant real property (hereinafter referred to as “the instant house”) is composed of a multi-household consisting of a single underground floor, a third floor on the ground and a rooftop (13.92 square meters), two households each on the underground floor, the first floor and the second floor on the ground, and one household on the third floor on the ground.

(2) Before the Plaintiff acquired the instant real property, the seller, together with his family members, resided in the third floor and the rooftop of the instant housing, and leased a total of six households from the first floor to the second floor above the instant housing to the second floor above the ground of the instant housing, to ParkCC, ParkD, RedE, KimF, leG, and New HH.

(3)In connection with the sale of the instant real estate, DoA did not pay the transfer income tax because the instant real estate was subject to non-taxation for one house per household.

(4) In relation to the transfer of this case, the Plaintiff filed a report on the tax base of capital gains tax as above with the Defendant, and submitted one copy of the real estate sales contract ("A No. 3, hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract") stating that the purchase price is KRW 480 million in relation to the acquisition price, and that the amount of KRW 13,00,000,000 and KRW 259,000,000 in relation to the property of this case is KRW 200,000 in relation to the property of this case. After which the Plaintiff filed an objection to the disposition of this case, the Plaintiff submitted one copy of the sales contract ("A No. 4, 200,000 won in relation to the acquisition price and KRW 13,99,000 in relation to the property of this case and KRW 3,90,000 in relation to the property of this case.

(5)A letter of confirmation of the fact of transaction made on June 20, 2008, prepared by it, indicates that the purchase price of the instant real estate was KRW 59.8 million, and that some of them was substituted for payment by the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the lease deposit obligation KRW 399.9 million and the collateral security obligation against Nonghyup for the lease deposit obligation, KRW 13 million.0 million.

(6)DuA received KRW 186 million, out of the purchase price of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff side, several times from August 28, 2000 to March 20, 2001.

(7) Upon raising an objection against the instant disposition, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a written lease contract (No. 8-1) under the condition that, on October 3, 2000, HuA and Park II entered into a lease contract with the housing tower of the instant house as KRW 30 million (No. 8-1) and that, on November 5, 1999, HuA and HuJ entered into a lease contract with the part of the instant house as KRW 100 million (No. 8-5). On the other hand, HuJ did not make a move-in report with the instant house as its domicile.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A 3 to 6, Evidence A 7 and Evidence A 8 to 8, Evidence A to 4, Evidence A to 9, Part of Witness Hea's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

According to the above, as alleged by the plaintiff, it was not necessary to prepare a false sales contract stating a smaller amount than the actual purchase price in order to sell the instant real estate as it constitutes a non-taxation object for one household. Since, at the time of the plaintiff's acquisition of the instant real estate, six lessees, such as HuA's family members and ParkCC, reside in the instant real estate, and there were no additional leases, it cannot be deemed that HuAA actually leased part of the instant real estate to HuB and YJ as above, it cannot be deemed that the above lease deposit of Y II and YJ is included in the purchase price of the instant real estate. In light of the above, the lease and loan amount of the instant real estate, and the sales amount and debt amount of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff paid to HuA in cash, and the Plaintiff submitted a sales contract for the instant real estate to HuA, the Plaintiff's assertion that the purchase price of the instant real estate is consistent with the truth, the Plaintiff's testimony and evidence No. 1 to 780,00,00.78.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, based on the premise that the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate in KRW 480 million, is lawful.