Changwon District Court 2008Guhap2598 (2009.07)

Cho High Court Decision 2008Da1571 (Law No. 871, 2008)

Negation of reported details by conversion acquisition value, and propriety of disposition imposed as actual transaction price

Since the amount reported by the former transferor is investigated at the district tax office having jurisdiction over the transfer value and the reported amount is recognized as the same fact as the actual sale price, the acquisition value is unclear, and the reported amount cannot be recognized as converted acquisition value.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 197,625,370 against the plaintiff on February 13, 2008 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions of the instant case;

The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in the entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, together with the purport of the entire pleadings:

A. As to the land of this case with respect to BB, 269 1,131 m2 and 1,375 m2, prior to 270-1 m270-1 m2 (hereinafter “the land of this case”), on July 21, 1998, as to the inheritance by consultation and division on April 6, 1998, the sale was made on July 26, 200 to the Plaintiff on July 20, 200, from the Plaintiff on May 14, 2007, each ownership transfer registration was completed from the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. on April 20, 2007.

B. On July 22, 200, HA made a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income tax on the actual transaction price of the land of this case (157,126,200 won) and the transfer price (153,00,000 won) to the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the payment amount of KRW 153,00,000, and the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the transfer price of this case recognized the purchase price of the land of this case as the actual transaction price after investigating the actual transfer price for the plaintiff, etc. who is the transferee of the land of this case.

C. On 2007, the Plaintiff calculated the acquisition value of the instant land as KRW 792,590,785, the conversion value, and calculated the transfer value as KRW 1,020,000, the actual transaction value at KRW 1,020,000, and filed a preliminary return on the tax base

D. Accordingly, the Defendant confirmed that the real acquisition value of the instant land was KRW 153,00,00 as described in the above B, as a result of the survey on the actual acquisition value of the instant land, and assessed the said amount as KRW 860,492,100 ( KRW 1,020,000 - 153,000,000) from the gains from transfer by deeming it as the actual acquisition value of the instant land, again, and imposed KRW 197,625,370 on the Plaintiff on December 13, 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 6, 2008, but was dismissed on July 11, 2008.

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff's principal

The purchase price actually paid by the Plaintiff at the time of acquiring the instant land exceeds KRW 172,50,00 (the actual payment + KRW 32,500,000 + KRW 140,000,000). Although the officially announced price of the instant land at that time reaches approximately KRW 216,00,000, the instant disposition that deemed the acquisition price of the instant land as KRW 153,00,000 is unlawful since it violates the principle of substantial taxation.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In calculating gains on transfer, the term "actual transaction value, which is the basis for calculating gains on transfer, refers to the actual transaction price, not the market price that reflects the objective exchange value, but the actual transaction price itself or at the time of the transaction, and pursuant to Article 114(2), (4), and (6) of the Income Tax Act, where a resident files a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income based on the actual transaction price, the return price is different from the fact, and if the head of the tax office or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction

(2) In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff’s actual purchase price of the instant land was KRW 140,00,00 as security on November 30, 199, but did not pay interest rate of KRW 9,92,173 until July 25, 200, which was 00,000 if the actual purchase price of the instant land was 00,000,000 won or more than 10,000 won and the actual purchase price of the instant land was 00,000,000 won and 10,000,000 won was 10,000,000,000 won and 20,000,000 won were 0,000,00 won and 10,000,000,000 won and 10,000,000 won and 10,000,00 won were 6,000,00 won.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which calculated capital gains by using the acquisition value of KRW 153,00,000, which is the actual acquisition value confirmed, based on the Plaintiff’s actual acquisition value, based on the preliminary return of tax base of capital gains as the actual transaction value, is lawful. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is

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