Cho-2014-China-4017 ( October 30, 2014)

The land of this case was transferred by sale.

Since the instant land was transferred by sale and the actual transaction price is confirmed, the transfer value cannot be converted by the standard market price.

Article 100 of the Income Tax Act (Calculation of Gains on Transfer)

The revocation of revocation of reduction or correction of capital gains tax, 2015Gudan255

OO

O Head of tax office

2016.08.24

oly 12, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on January 13, 2014 regarding the reduction of the capital gains tax exceeding the OO won shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff also filed a sales contract with the competent registry office on October 22, 2012, 2000 square meters prior to OO-O-O, 1,421 square meters prior to O-O-O-O-O, 403 square meters prior to O-O-O-O-O, and O-O-O-O-O-O-owned 510 square meters in total (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant land”). The Plaintiff filed a sales contract with the competent registry office on October 22, 2012 regarding the instant land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land as a result of the instant transaction.

B. On December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff reported the transfer value of the instant land as the said OO or the acquisition value as the OO or the transfer value as the OO or the transfer value.

C. On November 12, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the Defendant on November 12, 2013, and the instant land was engaged in simple exchange transactions with OO-O Nos.O-O Nos.O.O.,O-O, andO Nos.O. (hereinafter “the instant commercial building”) owned by AA, and thus, it cannot be confirmed the actual transaction price. Thus, the transfer value is calculated as the standard market price, and the request for correction to reduce O Nos. O. of the said transfer income tax was made. However, the Defendant failed to notify the above request after the lapse of two months, thereby refusing the above request for correction pursuant to Article 45-2(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal on July 24, 2014 upon filing an objection on April 3, 2014, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on October 30, 2014.

Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-1 through 5, Gap evidence 4-6, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the fact that the cause of registration is the sale and purchase of the instant land, but it is merely a form, and that the sale and purchase contract for the instant land and the instant commercial building is stated as a continuous conclusion, that the sale and sale contract for the instant land is stipulated as a lump sum payment, that is, the sale and sale contract is stipulated as a lump sum payment, that the ownership transfer registration has been made on the day following the date of the contract entered in the sales and sale contract, that there has been no payment between the Plaintiff and AA, and that BB is an individual among the instant transactions and AA and BB is an exchange contract, the instant land is a simple exchange without a commercial building and market price appraisal, and thus it constitutes a case where the actual transfer value cannot be confirmed, and thus, the instant disposition in violation of this provision is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Therefore, the plaintiff should prove that the transfer of the land in this case was caused by a simple exchange, unlike the above grounds for registration, since the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 23, 2012 from the plaintiff on October 23, 2012 on the ground of sale as of October 22, 2012.

Therefore, the above evidence shows that the sales contract of this case and the land of this case shall be paid in lump sum because it is stated that the sales contract of this case and the land of this case shall be paid in lump sum, and since the above evidence Nos. 3 through 5 and No. 6 through 8 shall be added to the above evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the plaintiff's transfer registration was made in the name of the witness of this case as of October 31, 2012, and that the sale contract of this case shall not be deemed to have been made in the form of sale and purchase contract of this case, and that the sale and purchase contract of this case shall not be deemed to have been made in the form of sale and purchase contract of this case, and that the appraisal and sale contract of this case shall not be deemed to have been made in the form of sale and purchase contract of this case, but it shall not be deemed to have been made in the form of an appraisal and sale contract of this case, because it is against the plaintiff's assertion that the sale and sale contract of this case was not made in the form of sale and sale.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.