early 2011.0977 ( December 30, 2011)

The propriety of the disposition imposed on an appraisal corporation by deeming the appraisal value as the market price.

In the absence of special circumstances concerning change in the value of assets, if there is a difference in the value of the same property conducted by the same appraisal corporation for a period of not more than ten months, it cannot be deemed that it conforms to the market price.

2012Guhap1480 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax

Medical Corporations AAAA Medical Foundation

Daejeon director of the tax office

May 22, 2013

June 28, 2013

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on December 6, 2010 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation that operates a special convalescent hospital for the aged from July 25, 2000 to the same time as the Dong-gu, 000.

B. Around December 2008, the Plaintiff invested in the 00 Yancheon-si, Yancheon-si, 000 large 5,726 m26 m2 and 2 m2 m2 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) and established the Non-Party Medical Corporation 00 Medical Foundation (hereinafter “Non-Party Medical Foundation”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 24, 2008.

C. On the other hand, DDR appraisal corporation (hereinafter "DDR") is about October 24, 2008.

The market price of the instant real estate, medical equipment, landscaping trees, etc. was 00 won 1).

D. The Defendant, at the time of investment of KRW 000 as the market price of the instant real estate at the time of investment, deemed the difference of KRW 000 in the total book value of the instant real estate recorded in the Plaintiff’s account book at the time of investment, as the profits from the disposal of fixed assets, deemed the difference of KRW 000,000 as the total book value of the instant real estate recorded in the Plaintiff’s account book at the time of investment, and imposed a correction of KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the year 2008 on December 6, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal on March 3, 201, but was dismissed on December 30, 201.

[Based on Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, and Eul evidence 1, and the whole purport of the pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of this case is unlawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant real estate invested in order to establish the Nonparty Foundation was offered as a joint collateral for the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s other real estate at the time of investment, but the debt ratio of the instant real estate invested in order to meet the requirements for the establishment of the Nonparty Foundation was not more than 50%. At the Plaintiff’s request, DDR assessed the instant real estate at the Plaintiff’s request and assessed that the debt ratio falls short of 50% by arbitrarily increasing the appraised value. Therefore, DC’s appraised value of the instant real estate cannot be deemed as the lawful market value of the instant real estate, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition was unlawful, since the instant appraised value cannot be deemed as the market value without any actual verification.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) With respect to the market price of the instant real estate, DH was conducted on October 24, 2008 by the EE Appraisal Office (hereinafter “EE Appraisal Office”) on August 24, 2009, and both the OO deposit and EE Appraisal were conducted by the FF, the same appraiser. On the other hand, HH was conducted on January 10, 2013 by the GG Appraisal Office (hereinafter “GG Appraisal”)’s appraisal on the instant real estate at the request of this court. If the results of the above tax appraisal are summarized and integrated, it is as follows:

2) D.D. (O) performed a separate evaluation of the building and the interior, and the appraisal of the interior portion was 00 won.

3) DF calculated the appraised value of landscape trees at 000, and the appraised value of the above trees was also included in the appraised value of natural trees, and in particular, among natural trees, the appraised value of the trees was 000 won.

[Based on Recognition] Gap evidence 16, Eul evidence 2, and 3, the whole purport of the pleading

D. Determination

According to the appraisal results, ① the market price at the time of investment in the real estate in this case is less than KRW 000,000 at the time of investment in the real estate in this case. ② The defendant asserts that the appraisal price at the time of investment in the real estate in this case is the market price based on retroactive appraisal that the appraisal price at the time of investment in the real estate in this case is difficult to be deemed the market price at the time of investment in the real estate in this case, but the market price cannot be deemed to be erroneous merely because it is a retroactive appraisal, and ③ the appraisal price at the DDC and EE appraisal was conducted by the new FF, which is the same appraiser at the time, and there is a big difference in the assessment result, even though there is no change in special circumstances, it is difficult to regard the appraisal price at the DDC as the legitimate market price at the time of investment in the real estate in this case, and from the contrary point of view, the defendant's disposition at the time of investment in the above OO is unlawful, and thus, the plaintiff's allegation is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.