Suwon District Court 201Mo4771 ( December 01, 201)

early 2010 Heavy3772 ( October 17, 2011)

It is difficult to recognize the acquisition value under the sales contract submitted by the Plaintiff as the actual transaction amount.

In light of the fact that the sales contract claiming that the real sales contract is signed and sealed by the seller, and that the seller stated to the effect that there is no means to prepare the contract, etc., it is difficult to recognize that the contract submitted by the Plaintiff as a contract actually formed between the parties to the transaction.

2012Nu2407 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Maximum XX

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap4771 Decided December 1, 2011

June 1, 2012

December 7, 2012

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2005 against the Plaintiff on June 14, 2010, in excess of KRW 000,00, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. One-third of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on June 14, 2010 against the Plaintiff on June 14, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of disposition;

The reasons for this part of the judgment are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. It shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main sentence of Article 420

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The following circumstances are as follows: ① A sales contract (No. 4-2) in which the purchase price of the instant real estate is KRW 000 was falsely prepared by using a seal imprint certificate and a certificate of personal seal impression received from the Plaintiff by the head of SongA and a licensed real estate agent office; even if not, the content of the contract itself cannot be deemed as KRW 000,000. ② A seller, who was awarded a successful bid for the instant real estate in KRW 000, cannot be deemed to have sold the instant real estate in KRW 00. ③ If the sale price of the instant real estate is deemed to be KRW 00,000, a large difference between the instant 104 and KRW 00,000, which was purchased by the Plaintiff at a similar time; ④ In full view of the fact that the purchase price of the instant real estate is written in KRW 00,000, the real sales contract (No. 4-1 of the evidence No. 4) with respect to the instant real estate, the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant real estate was unlawful on the premise that the purchase price of KRW 0000.

B. Determination

1) Acquisition value of the instant real estate (actual transaction value)

A) First of all, we examine whether the sales contract (No. 4-1, hereinafter referred to as "the first contract of this case") in which the Plaintiff asserts that the real sales contract of this case is a real sales contract of the real estate of this case is established is genuine.

The following circumstances are revealed based on Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2 and the result of fact-finding on the head of the Si/Gun/Gu in this Court. ① A sales contract (hereinafter "the second contract of this case") in which the purchase price of the real estate of this case is KRW 000 is affixed with a seal imprint at the time of the plaintiff and SongA. On the other hand, the first contract of this case contains a seal imprint with the plaintiff's seal imprint at the time, and SongA is affixed with a seal imprint other than the seal imprint; ② the total area of the real estate of this case at the time of purchase by the plaintiff was 321.8 square meters; ② The total area of the real estate of this case was 32.8 square meters above this case, while the second contract of this case was written as 321.93 square meters above this case; ③ The second contract of this case was prepared as a real estate agent of the court of first instance and prepared as a real estate agent of this case under the first contract of this case (the second contract of this case).

B) Next, we examine how much the Plaintiff actually acquired the instant real estate.

According to the above facts, the contract of this case appears to have been prepared on the basis of the intention of both parties (the plaintiff alleged that the contract of this case No. 2 was not actually formed, but in light of the circumstances mentioned above and the fact that the certificate of transaction under the name of the plaintiff and the licensed real estate agent that the contract of this case was made at KRW 000,000 as the purchase price stated in the contract of this case was prepared, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted. However, it is examined below as to whether the purchase price stated in the contract of this case is identical to the actual transaction, separately from the establishment of the authenticity of the contract of this case No. 2, the contract of this case No. 200, and there is a written confirmation of transaction as to the above fact that the purchase price stated in the contract of this case is at KRW 00,000. However, considering the following various circumstances, the disposition of this case on other premise seems to be unlawful.

(1) In the first instance court, Song-A, a seller of the instant real estate, decided to acquire the instant real estate as KRW 000, the amount of the sales price of the instant real estate includes KRW 000,000, the amount of loan obligations secured by the instant real estate. Therefore, the money actually received is KRW 000 (the amount of KRW 00,000, out of this money was paid as real estate brokerage commission) and the reasons stated in the column for the sales price of the instant contract is correct. The instant second contract stated to the effect that the instant amount of the sales price is less than the actual amount of the sales price for the purpose of tax reduction.

(2) Although the amount of the purchase price for the second contract of this case is indicated as KRW 000, it is divided into a loan (00 won), a down payment (00 won), an intermediate payment (000 won), and a balance (000 won), and it is presumed that there is no entry in the relationship between the loan and the balance while the special agreement is intended to succeed to the loan of KRW 00, and that there is no entry in the relationship between the loan and the balance, it is presumed that the amount of KRW 000 entered in the purchase price column is less than the actual amount (as seen above, SongA stated the so-called "the so-called "the contract for the second contract of this case") (in light of the entries in the second contract of this case as above, the actual purchase price for the real estate of this case appears to be 00 won which is the aggregate of the amounts for each of the above names).

(3) The unit price per square meter based on the area of the section for exclusive use under subparagraph 104 of the instant case is approximately KRW 000 ( KRW 000/57.87 square meters). The unit price per square meter based on the area of the section for exclusive use of the instant real estate is approximately KRW 000 ( KRW 000/321.88 square meters), which is too large, to view the purchase price of the instant real estate as KRW 00.

(4) In light of the aforementioned testimony, it is difficult to accept the part of the sales price in the letter of confirmation of the fact of transactions under the names of the plaintiffs and licensed real estate agents, which confirmed that the sales price of the instant real estate is KRW 000,000, and the contract of the instant second contract is so-called "the so-called "the so-called "the instant contract".

(5) The Plaintiff asserted that the sales price of the instant real estate was KRW 000,000, but there is no particular evidence to acknowledge that the amount paid to Song with the instant real estate sales price exceeds KRW 00,00 as recognized in light of the aforementioned various circumstances.

(6) In addition to the sales price for the instant real estate in the court of first instance, Song has testified that the Plaintiff received KRW 000 as premium in addition to the sales price for the instant real estate. However, the Plaintiff did not have paid any money in the name of the premium, and the testimony of SongA related to the premium itself was actually received KRW 000,000, excluding the loan amount of KRW 000,000, out of the sales price, but it is difficult to believe that the premium is included in the above KRW 00,000.

(ii) a reasonable amount of tax;

Furthermore, this paper examines the legitimate tax amount on the premise that the acquisition value of the instant real estate (actual transaction value) is 000 won.

If the acquisition value of the instant real estate is KRW 000, a reasonable tax amount including additional tax (additional tax amount of KRW 000 for a failure to file a return, and additional tax of KRW 000 for a failure to pay taxes) is 000 won.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and part of the judgment of the court of first instance should be accepted. However, since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, part of the plaintiff's appeal is accepted, and part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff as to the part exceeding the above reasonable amount of tax among the dispositions of this case is revoked,