Daegu High Court-2016-Nu-526 (2.03, 2017)

(C) If a contract submitted by the Plaintiff is not reliable and the acquisition value is not confirmed, the disposition to apply the conversion value is legitimate.

(C) The Majority Opinion argues that the Plaintiff’s payment of the purchase price of the instant land would be sufficiently possible based on trust between family members, but rather, there is no reason to first remit part of the remainder prior to the arrival of the remainder of the sales contract, if it is assumed that such transaction was a transaction with trust.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff on October 0, 2000, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on October 0, 2000.

187,784,510 won (including additional taxes) shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) evidence submitted by the Plaintiff at the trial, which is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion; (b) Party A’s explanation is partially limited as follows; and (c) the Plaintiff’s new assertion in the trial at the trial is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the judgment as stipulated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows.

The second 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 26,103,540th 26,10th 26,100 won of transfer income tax.

○ The second 16th 16th am the capital gains tax of KRW 187,784,220 (including additional tax) is the capital gains tax of KRW 187,784,510 (including additional tax).

○○ 156,549,800 won (646.8 square meters x 242,000 won) for “156,525,600 won (i.e., 646.8 square meters x 242,00 won) of the fifth sentence of the first instance judgment.”

○ KRW 966,712,000 on the 5th written judgment of the first instance court (646.8 square meters x 1,490,000).

‘963,732,00 won (=646.8 square meters x 1,490,000 won)'.

○ The annual salary of 16,684,00 won for the year 196, for the annual salary of 1997 and for the annual salary of 17,971,000 won for the year 1997, the annual salary of 16,684,00 won for the year 196, for the year 17,971,000 won for the year 197, for the year 1997, and for the year 18,978,000 for the year 198.

○ The testimony of the 7th trial decision of the first instance court is ‘the testimony of the 17th trial decision of the first instance court of the AA' as ‘the testimony of the first instance court of the AA'.

○ The last 7th sentence of the first instance court's decision is '(7) and 8(8)' with evidence(7) through 9(3).

(c)

○ Each of the 8th judgments of the first instance court, 8th and 8th, 'part of the testimony of AA' by each of the witnesses.

The testimony of the witness AA is regarded as a "part of the testimony".

"AAA" in the last sentence of the judgment of the first instance, and in the first sentence of the first instance, means "A" in the court, respectively, to "A" in the court of first instance.

In light of the content of the No. 11 and No. 6 of the judgment of the first instance court, “The Plaintiff agreed to transfer the purchase price of the land of this case to AA as the date of the sales contract and the date of the payment of the purchase price. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the transaction was sufficiently possible by trust between the payment date of the sales contract and the family members. However, if it is assumed that the transaction was conducted with such trust, there is no reason to first transfer part of the balance before the remainder of the sales contract. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff or BB transferred the payment of the purchase price to the purchase price and the sales price of KRW 85,569,228 and KRW 87,000,000 are inconsistent with the empirical rule, even if examining whether the difference was paid in cash as argued by the Plaintiff, as well as whether the difference was paid in cash, it is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion that only part of the difference was paid in cash at any time.”

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the market price appraised as of April 25, 2007 with respect to the land of this case, the sale price of this case between the Plaintiff and AA as of April 20, 198, which was concluded between the Plaintiff and AAA as of April 20, 1998, shall be deemed to have been calculated by appropriately considering the market price. Thus, the disposition of this case on a different premise shall be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. Determination

According to Gap evidence No. 20, the plaintiff's land of this case from NFF.

As of April 25, 2007, when the NFF Cooperative requested an appraisal of the instant land, the appraiser may find that the market price of the instant land was KRW 1,228,920,000 as of April 20, 207. However, solely based on the above recognition alone, it is insufficient to deem that the market price at the time of April 20, 1998 was KRW 870,000,000, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Rather, in full view of the purport of the pleading as to the entry in Eul evidence No. 15, the officially assessed land price of the instant land is KRW 242,00,000,000 and KRW 1,360,000,000 for the year of 198 to 2007,000,000,000,000 as of the purchase price of the instant land as of April 28, 2007.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall conclude this conclusion.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s appeal is justifiable, it is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.