2013west 3915 ( December 17, 2013)

The purchase price of land and buildings on December 27, 2005 shall be 900 million won, and it shall not be deemed that part of the land was purchased before the sales contract was made.

Since it cannot be deemed that a part of the land was purchased before the sales contract was concluded on December 27, 2005, the acquisition price shall be deemed 2/3 of the actual transaction price required for the acquisition of the land and building in this case.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income)

2014 old-gu 4231 Disposition rejecting capital gains tax rectification

Gangwon A

O Head of tax office

National Rotations

June 11, 2015

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 capital gains tax of KRW 131,593,480 for the Plaintiff on February 1, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 14, 2006, 2006, 2/3 shares in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”) were owned by YB and 382.1 square meters of the instant building (hereinafter referred to as “the instant building”) and the instant building (hereinafter referred to as “the instant building”) were registered for transfer of ownership on the grounds of inheritance due to the consultation and division under the name of KimCC on March 15, 2006.

B. Since then, the instant real estate was sold through a voluntary auction on April 30, 2012, and the ownership transfer registration was completed in the EE name.

C. On October 17, 2012, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax of the instant real estate at KRW 996,562,166, and the acquisition value at KRW 900,000, but did not pay the transfer income tax.

D. On February 1, 2013, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 131,593,480 (including additional tax on bad faith) of the capital gains tax calculated by deeming the transfer value of the instant real estate as KRW 1,034,425,206, and the acquisition value as KRW 600,000.

E. The Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an appeal on September 6, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said claim on December 17, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 4, 10 evidence, Eul 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On May 30, 1995, the Plaintiff’s husband KimD purchased (the first sale contract) part of 240,000,000 square meters adjacent to the road among the instant land, and thereafter purchased (the second sale contract) the remainder of 282.1 square meters among the instant land on December 27, 2005 and the instant building at KRW 900,000. Therefore, even though the sale price of the instant land and the instant building was stated as KRW 90,000,00, the sales contract on December 27, 2005, the purchase price of the instant land and the instant building should be indicated as KRW 282.1 square meters among the instant land and the building of this case. Since the Plaintiff and KimD purchased each specific part of the instant land, they should be deemed to have a divided ownership relation, but they were registered only on convenience, convenience, and convenience.

Therefore, in calculating the transfer income tax on the Plaintiff, the instant disposition calculated differently, even though it should have had the acquisition value of the instant building and the instant building in KRW 900,000,000, among the instant land, was unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) Details of Gap evidence No. 4 (Real Estate Sales Contract)

Date of contract: December 27, 2005

Indication of Real Estate: Land and Building of this case

Sales amount: 900,000,000 won (contract amounting to 90,000,000 won on January 25, 2006, intermediate payment of KRW 300,000,000 on February 24, 2006, any balance of KRW 510,000,000 on March 24, 2006)

Seller: HB, KimCC, etc.

Buyer: Plaintiff

2) Details of Gap evidence No. 7 (a sales contract)

Contract Date: April 3, 1995

Marking of real estate: OOO-O large of 100 square meters

Sales amount: 240,00,000 won (contract amounting to 40,000,000 won on April 3, 1995, intermediate payment of KRW 100,000,000 on April 29, 1995, and any balance of KRW 100,000,000 on May 30, 1995)

Seller: HB

Buyer: KimD

C. Determination

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 of evidence Nos. 2-1, 7-2, and 4, the plaintiff and KimD purchase the land and building of this case at KRW 900,000,000 on December 27, 2005. Accordingly, the acquisition value of the land and building of this case at KRW 2/3,000,000, which is 2/3,000 of the actual transaction value required for the acquisition of the land and building of this case, should be deemed as the real estate of this case. Accordingly, the defendant's disposition of this case calculated capital gains tax on this basis is lawful (No. 7 cannot be deemed as evidence for the lack of evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and even if the family authenticity is recognized, it is difficult to acknowledge that the plaintiff and the plaintiff purchased the land of this case and the building of this case prior to the purchase contract of this case, or there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff and the plaintiff purchased the land of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.