Seocho 2013west 1168 (05 March 2014)

Since it is confirmed that only some amount of actual acquisition price claimed by the Plaintiff is confirmed, the remaining amount of taxation is legitimate.

Since there is no objective evidence, such as financial support supporting that the Plaintiff paid KRW 000 to the net 000 as the purchase price of the instant land or paid necessary expenses corresponding thereto, the Defendant’s denial of the remaining amount after excluding the amount verified is legitimate.

2014Gudan53585 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

O Head of tax office

October 15, 2014

November 19, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on August 7, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff from 000 on May 31, 2002 (Death on October 30, 2002) to 00: 00 : 285-5 -

285-12, 287, 287-2, 287-6 5 parcel of land and 2,854 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant parcel of land”) were acquired, but it was transferred in accordance with the voluntary auction procedure on October 19, 2010.

B. The plaintiff calculated the acquisition value of the land of this case at KRW 000, and the transfer income tax

However, on August 7, 2012, the Defendant reported the real acquisition value of the instant land to the Plaintiff.

Based on the premise that it is KRW 000, the capital gains tax for the year 2010 was determined and notified (in the disposition of capital gains tax, the remaining 000 won is hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case after reduction or correction due to the change in the acquisition value of real estate other than the land in this case).

C. The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.

[Ground of Recognition] A. A. 1 to 3-2, 9-1 to 9-5, 1, 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the actual acquisition value of the instant real estate is KRW 000 or KRW 000, the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination

○ The burden of proof on the tax base that is the basis of taxation in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the income tax disposition

The tax base shall be in the Customs Office and shall be the revenue, as the necessary expenses are deducted from the revenue.

The burden of proof of necessary expenses also belongs to the tax authority in principle, but necessary expenses shall be liable to pay tax.

In addition, most of the facts giving rise to necessary expenses are more favorable to the person, and most of the tax liability.

If it is difficult for the tax authority to prove it because it is located in the territory under its own control.

Therefore, considering the difficulty of proof or equity between the parties, the taxpayer is liable for tax payment.

that if it is reasonable to prove that the taxpayer is required to establish the

The concept of fairness is consistent (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du16137, Oct. 26, 2007).

○ Taking into account the following circumstances, Gap evidence 6, 7, and 10-1 to 3:

The actual acquisition value of the land of this case is 000 won or more only with 4 descriptions of evidence 11-4

It is insufficient to recognize that the above land is 000 won, and there is no evidence to recognize that the real acquisition value of the above land exceeds 000 won.

▪원고가 망 000에게 000원 상당을 지급하였다는 취지에 부합하는 듯한 증거로 갑 제6, 7호증이 있으나, 갑 제6호증(2002. 4. 23.자 망 000작성 수령확인서)에는, "일금 000원, 1. 00군 00면 00 산60-1 계약관련 000원, 2. 00구 00동 36-43 다세대 계약 관련 000원, 3. 000(수령인부인) 지급 000원, 4. 00시 0동 00빌딩(일부) 낙찰보증금 000원, 5. 2000. 2. - 2002. 3. 4회 대여금 000원, 6. 공담설정관련 대여금000원. 위 금액을 수령하였음을 확인함."이라고 기재되어 있고, 갑 제7호증(2003. 6. 13.자 합의서)에도 같은 취지의 내용만 기재만 있을 뿐이고, 위 금원이 이 사건 토지의 매매대금으로 수수된 것이라고 볼 만한 기재 내용은 찾을 수 없다.

▪오히려, 을 제10호증(2002. 2. 21.자 원고 작성 확약서)에는, "확약인은 000에게 2000. 1. 28. 인천지방법원 부천지원에서 진행한 00타경6171 사건(00빌딩)에 입찰보증금으로 투자한 000원과 2000. 6. 5. 00구 00동 36-43 건물에 매매대금으로 투자한 000원, 그리고 00북 00군 소재 부동산(임야)에 계약금으로 투자한 000원 등을 책임지고 정산하겠으며 위 금액에 대하여 확약인의 부동산이 매매되면 우선 정산할 것을 확약함."이라고 기재되어 있고, 을 제11호증(2002. 10. 4.자 원고작성 지불이행각서)에는 "본인은 귀하의 부친(000)으로부터 1999. 12. 8. 00주시 00동 287외 5필지 964평을 매입하고 그 대금 000원을 지불하지 못하고 있는바, 위 대금 중 2002. 10. 19.까지 금 0억 ~ 000원을 지불하고, 나머지 전액은 2003. 2. 28.까지 완불하겠음."이라고 기재되어 있으므로, 갑 제6호증(수령확인서)에 표시된 금원의 전부 또는 일부는 이 사건 부동산의 양도와 무관한 별개의 채권・채무관계에 따라 수수된 것으로 볼 여지가 크다.

▪갑 제10호증의 1(1997. 10. 31.자 망 000 및 원고 작성 토지매매계약서)에

In the case where the purchase price of three lots of land, including 00,000,285-4, 285-5, and 287, is stated as "00,000,000,000,000, and where the purchase price of five lots of land, including 287,287-2, 287-6, 285-5, 285-12, the purchase price of five lots of land, including 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00.

▪원고가 망 000에게 이 사건 토지의 매매대금으로 000원을 지급하거나 이에 상응하는 필요경비를 지출하였음을 뒷받침하는 금융내역 등 객관적인 증빙자료는 없다.

○ Accordingly, the instant disposition was lawful by calculating the actual acquisition value of the instant land at KRW 000.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.