Review Transfer 2009-0137 (Law No. 13, 2009)

No land building that has been transferred en bloc shall be distributed proportionally to the tax base for the registration tax receipt.

The tax base of registration tax receipt is difficult to use the real acquisition value as evidence to recognize the real acquisition value, and the disposition of dividing the total sale value en bloc by the standard market price of land and building is legitimate.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 17,326,910 on February 2, 2009 against the Plaintiff on February 2, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 14, 1985, the Plaintiff acquired a site of 56 square meters and a building of 44.52 square meters located in Mapo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City 139-230, 139-230 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land and building”), and transferred it to a third party on October 23, 2006, and filed a transfer income tax report with the transfer value of 167,50,000 won based on the actual transaction price, and the conversion acquisition value of 138,752,00 won.

B. The Defendant issued the instant disposition to impose and notify the Plaintiff of KRW 17,326,910 as transfer income tax on February 2, 2009, when the Plaintiff calculated the total transfer value of the instant land and buildings in proportion to the standard market price, by dividing the total transfer value of the instant land and buildings by KRW 165,127,714, and the transfer value of the building by 2,379,286, and by converting the land acquisition value into the standard market price according to the method of converting the base market price according to the ratio of the transfer value based on the standard market price, and the acquisition value of the building was calculated as KRW 49,717,66,66, and KRW 6,561,82 as of February 2, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 4-1 to 3, Evidence No. 6, Evidence No. 12-1, 2, Gap No. 15, and 20, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. Summary of the plaintiff's main office

The actual transfer value of the land and buildings of this case is divided in proportion to 68% of the total transfer value base, and 38% of the buildings are calculated based on the tax base indicated in the receipt for registration tax paid at the time of acquisition in 1985, and it is legitimate to calculate the conversion acquisition value and report the transfer income tax based on the amount. However, the disposition of this case by the defendant, which was imposed by calculating the transfer income tax according to the method different from the plaintiff'

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 23, No. 23, and No. 1, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff sold at KRW 167,500,000 in total without dividing the land and buildings at the time of selling the instant land and buildings, and as evidence for proportional distribution of the value of the transfer and acquisition of the instant land and buildings, No. 2 (Registration Tax Receipt) asserted by the Plaintiff as evidence of proportional distribution, merely stating the class and tax base of the site and buildings at the time of 1985, it is difficult to recognize the actual acquisition value or transfer value of the instant land and buildings as evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the respective actual transfer value and acquisition value of the instant land and buildings.

Therefore, since the transfer of the instant land and buildings is deemed to fall under the case where the entire sale price of each of the instant land and buildings is transferred in a lump sum without distinguishing the sale price of each of the assets, and the distinction between the transfer price by each of their assets is unclear and the acquisition price is not known, it is deemed that the Defendant comprehensively transferred the instant land and buildings, and that the classification of the transfer price by each of their assets is unclear and the confirmation of the acquisition price is impossible, and thus, Article 100(2) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 166(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890 of Feb. 28, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply) calculated the lawful transfer price by calculating the transfer price by the method of the transfer price based on the standard market price of the land and buildings as well as the total sale price of each of the instant land and buildings.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.