2012west 3657 ( December 31, 2012)

Since the appraised value at the time of borrowing from a national bank is similar to the acquisition value reported by the Plaintiff, the reported acquisition value is actual acquisition value.

The appraised value at the time of lending from the National Bank can be deemed as an objective price at the time of the appraisal. The appraisal value at the time of the lending is deemed to be almost similar to the acquisition value reported by the Plaintiff and the disposition at the time of actual acquisition is legitimate

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

2013Guhap52476 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Park AA

Head of Guro Tax Office

July 19, 2013

September 27, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax of 2004 against the Plaintiff on May 21, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. The plaintiff transferred the OO-Gu OO-dong 124-425 (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") to thisCC on January 28, 2004, and reported and paid the transfer value on March 31, 2004 with the OOO and the acquisition value as the OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O.

C. After that, on September 9, 2009, the instant real estate was expropriated in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the purpose of housing redevelopment and improvement project, and thisCC reported capital gains tax on the acquisition value of the instant real estate as an OOO in the Central Tax Office. From March 22, 2012 to April 10, 2012, the director of the Central Tax Office conducted an investigation of the difference between the Plaintiff’s transfer value determined by the Director of the Central Tax Office and the acquisition value reported by thisCC, and confirmed that the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to OOO, and notified the Defendant of taxation data on April 2012.

"A disposition to increase the tax base and amount of tax to the Plaintiff on May 21, 2012, the Defendant additionally corrected and notified the OOO of capital gains tax (a disposition to increase the tax base and amount of tax is not a disposition to additionally determine only the omitted part without filing a tax base and amount of tax determined by the tax authority, but also a single tax base and amount of tax, including the tax base and amount of tax determined in the initial return or determination. As such, a disposition to increase the tax base and amount of tax, regardless of the lapse of the objection period against the initial return or determination, only the disposition to increase the office is subject to an appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du4588, Mar. 29, 2012; hereinafter referred to as the "instant disposition to revise the tax base and amount of tax"); and (e) the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition to the Tax Tribunal on August 4, 2012; and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 31, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Private theory without dispute, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 6, 7, and 8-1, 2, Eul evidence l through 3, Eul evidence 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In calculating the transfer income tax for the plaintiff 2004, there is no dispute that the transfer value of the real estate in this case is an OOO won. However, the acquisition value of the real estate in this case is the actual transaction value and should be the sum of the appraisal value of bank loans that the plaintiff succeeded from Park Jong-D, the former husband, OO, the repayment obligation of lease deposit, divorce-related materials, and child support OOO. Even though the acquisition value of the real estate in this case cannot be viewed as OOO, this case constitutes a case where the actual transaction value at the time of its acquisition cannot be confirmed, and thus, OO, the above real estate was purchased from OOO, or 2 OD has purchased the real estate in this case to oOO won on September 222, 2001, the disposal of the real estate in this case should be deemed to be unlawful, regardless of the acquisition value of the real estate in this case that the plaintiff reported OOO or the actual transaction value of the real estate in this case.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form A shall be as follows.

C. Determination

(1) According to Articles 94(1)1, 96(1)4, and 97(1)1(a) proviso and (c) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7120, Jan. 29, 2004; hereinafter referred to as the "former Income Tax Act"), where land and buildings are transferred within one year after the acquisition, the transfer value shall be based on the actual transaction value between the transferor and the transferee (hereinafter referred to as "actual transaction value"). In this case, in calculating the resident's gains on transfer, the transfer value among necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value shall be based on the actual transaction value required for the acquisition of the assets, and where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction value at the time of the acquisition, the acquisition value shall be based on the transaction example, appraisal value, or conversion value as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. According to the above recognition, since the Plaintiff acquires the real estate at issue on May 30, 2003 and transfers the real estate to the Plaintiff on January 28, 2004.

(2) Therefore, it is reasonable to view that: (a) the Plaintiff voluntarily reported the acquisition value of the instant real estate as an OOO member, based on the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence No. 7-2, No. 7-2, No. 3, and No. 11; and (b) the sales contract and the transfer price of the instant real estate, May 28, 2003, entered the purchase price as an OOO member, attached a certificate of transaction made by the Plaintiff with OOOOO-2 and a certificate of transaction made by the Plaintiff; (c) it is reasonable to view that OO-O-O-O-the appraised value, the appraised value at the time of lending O-O-O won from the National Bank on March 22, 202, which was the appraised value at the time of the Plaintiff’s borrowing O-O-O-O as an additional price, without taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the acquisition value of the instant real estate as the acquisition value of the instant real estate as the acquisition value of the instant movable property, the Plaintiff’s.

(3) Next, we examine the Plaintiff’s assertion.

(A) First, the Plaintiff alleged to the effect that both the transfer value and the acquisition value are calculated as the standard market price at the time of filing the transfer income tax return, but the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer income tax on the premise that the transfer value and the acquisition value are all the actual transaction value (However, the above transfer value and the above transfer value reported by the Plaintiff became false) under the premise that the transfer value and the acquisition value are all the actual transaction value of the Plaintiff, namely, the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer income tax on March 31, 2004 when reporting the tax base and the tax amount of the transfer income from the transfer of the instant real estate on March 31, 2004. In light of the fact that the sale price was submitted by attaching the sales contract dated May 28, 2003 between the Plaintiff and the Park Do-D recorded as the OO won and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s above assertion was without merit.

(B) Next, the Plaintiff asserted that the real value of the instant real estate purchased by the Plaintiff was the total amount of O, such as KRW 10,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

3. Conclusion

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