Suwon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-62052 ( August 8, 2017)

The calculation of the gift value of the building of this case is appropriate as the disposal price of the apartment subject to comparison.

The market price is not only as of the base date of appraisal, but also the transaction price of the property within the evaluation period, including the expropriation price, public sale price, and appraisal price of the property.

Article 49 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Principles of Appraisal)

Seoul High Court-2017-Nu66451 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

AA

O Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2017Guhap62052 Decided August 8, 2017

March 7, 2018

on October 17, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. On March 4, 2016, the defendant revoked the disposition of excess (including additional payment for arrears) of the gift tax of 00 won against the plaintiff on March 4, 2016.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why this Court is used in relation to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the contents asserted by the plaintiff in the court of first instance to the corresponding part. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to the provisions of Article 15(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, in order to become a comparative transaction example, the apartment complex in question is located in the same complex as the apartment complex in question, the difference in its area shall not exceed 5/100, and the difference in its standard market price shall not exceed 5/100. However, since the difference between the standard market price and the apartment house in this case is 11.55%, the similarity between the standard market price and the apartment house in this case is not recognized. Accordingly, business example of the comparative apartment in this case shall not be deemed as the

B. Determination

As the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act was amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance on March 10, 2017, Article 15(3) was newly established. Article 15(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance on March 10, 2017) provides that “The relevant property and the area, location, purpose, issue, and standard market price of the relevant property prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance are identical or similar to each other” under Article 49(4) of the Decree refers to the following:

On the other hand, the standard market price of the apartment of this case as of January 1, 2012 is KRW 512 million. The standard market price of the comparative apartment of this case as of January 1, 2012 is KRW 459 million and its difference is merely KRW 53 million. In addition, when the amount equivalent to the above difference is converted into a white rate based on the standard market price of the apartment of this case, it is merely 10.35% if all of the locations, areas, purposes, disposal periods, etc. of the apartment of this case and the comparative apartment of this case, the difference between the above standard market price and the apartment of this case cannot be deemed to have reached the extent of denying its similarity. The plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.