early 2012 Middle 3798 ( October 29, 2012)

Any disposition that denies the acquisition value reported by the claimant and imposes tax on the purchase price under the contract with the former owner on the register as the acquisition price is justifiable.

On the other hand, the claimant is unable to present objective evidence on the claim claim, such as the details paid to 000 for the acquisition price of the land in question, while the claimant does not present any objective evidence on the claim claim, such as the details paid to 000. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the claim claim.

Article 88 of the Income Tax Act

2013Gu 10162 Dodan10162 Revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

DogA

Head of the tax office

October 18, 2013

November 15, 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 2008 against the Plaintiff on January 1, 2012 (which appears to have been erroneous as stated in the written complaint on January 15, 2012) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

“○○ O, O, O, O, 1432 No. 14,851.8m, O, the ownership of which was originally KimB

1433 Response 15,242.9m

With respect to the Korea Agricultural and Rural Community Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Agricultural and Rural Community Corporation") prior to the change of the name on November 23, 2004, the name of each of the Korea Agricultural and Rural Community Corporation as of December 29, 2008, changed to the Korea Rural Community Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Agricultural and Rural Community Corporation") and on December 3, 2004, each ownership transfer registration has been made in the future of the plaintiff on December 3, 2004." "OOri 1429,504.2 square meters originally owned by KimB", "Ori 14,504.2 square meters, 1430 square meters, 14,589 square meters, 2 square meters, 1430 square meters, 1431, 1431, 1436 square meters, 36 square meters of the same Ri.

As to the land of this case and the land of this case 14,553 square meters in total (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case 2." The land of this case and the land of this case 2 are collectively referred to as "each of the land of this case." On March 8, 2005, the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation was again registered on March 25, 2005. The plaintiff acquired and owned each of the above land of this case, and transferred it to GCC on June 3, 2008. Accordingly, on May 31, 2010, the plaintiff reported the tax base of capital gains to the defendant on May 31, 2010, and filed a report on the actual transaction price of each of the land of this case as at the time of the transfer as the actual transaction price, each of the above OO was reported as the actual transaction price at the time of the transfer.

", however, the defendant recognized that the plaintiff acquired each of the instant land from an OOO on January 1, 2012, which is the name of the owner immediately before the registration ledger, and issued a correction and notification of OOOO in the capital gains tax for the year 2008 (hereinafter "the instant disposition") to the plaintiff." The plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 17, 2012, but the claim was dismissed on October 29, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 through 7, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased each of the instant lands from KimB to OB, and did not purchase from the Korea Agricultural Infrastructure Corporation the purchase price of the land from the Korea Agricultural Infrastructure Corporation. However, in order for the Plaintiff to receive a loan for purchase of farmland from the Korea Agricultural Infrastructure Corporation under the former Agricultural Infrastructure Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act, only the name of ownership on each of its registry to receive a loan for purchase of farmland, from KimB to the Korea Agricultural Infrastructure Corporation under the former Agricultural Infrastructure Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act, and the transfer from the Korea Agricultural Infrastructure Corporation to the Plaintiff again, the purchase price of each of the instant lands was 90% in form according to the internal regulations and practice of the Korea Agricultural Infrastructure Corporation, 10% of the purchase price of the instant land, and 10% of the purchase price of the Plaintiff, the first land of this case was OOO, and the second land of this case, as the purchase price of the instant land was OOOO and 200 won in total, and thus, the Plaintiff did not recognize the difference between OOOOO and the actual owner of each of each of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 14(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911 of Jan. 1, 2010) provides that the provisions on the calculation of tax base in tax-related Acts shall apply to the substance of income, profit, property, act or transaction, notwithstanding its name or form. Meanwhile, Articles 96(1) and 97(1)1(a) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009) and Article 94(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9774 of Jun. 9, 2009) provide that the acquisition value, which is the tax base of capital gains tax on real estate, shall be based on the actual transaction value. In this case, the actual transaction value refers to the actual transaction price, not the objective exchange value, but the actual amount agreed upon at the time of the transaction price itself or the payment at the time of the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du36796, Apr. 19, 26).

" 이 사건의 경우, 갑 2호증의 1, 2, 을 2호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 모아보면, 이 사건 제1토지에 관하여 매도인 농업기반공사, 매수인 원고로 하여 매매대금 OOOO원으로 기재된 2004. 12. 3.자 매매계약서가 작성되었고, 이 사건 제2토지에 관하여 매도인 농업기반공사, 매수인 원고로 하여 매매대금 OOOO원으로 기재된 2005. 3. 25.자 매매계약서가 작성되었으며, 위 각 계약서에 서산시장의 검인을 받은 사실이 인정되므로, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 위 각 검인계약서는 당사자들 사이의 매매계약 내용대로 작성된 것으로 추정되고, 다만, 갑 3호증의 기재에 의하면, 원고가 김BB으로부터 2004. 11. 29. 이 사건 제1토지를 대금 OOOO원에 매수하였다는 내용의 매매계약서와 2005. 3. 18. 이 사건 제2토지를 대금 OOOO원에 매수하였다는 내용의 매매계약서가 작성된 바 있어 위 각 계약서상 매매대금 합계액이 OOOO원에 이르는 사실은 인정되나, 과연 원고가 이 사건 토지를 취득할 당시 실지거래가액이 OOOO원이었는지에 관하여는, 위에서 든 증거들과 증인 김BB 의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ○ 원고가 위 각 검인계약서상 기재된 합계 OOOO원 외에 김BB에게 추가로 지급하였다는 금액이 OOOO원에 달함에도, 원고가 이를 입증할 금융자료 등 객관적 증거를 제출한 바 없는 점, ○ 특히 그 구체적인 지급경위에 관하여, 원고는위 OOOO원 중 OOOO원은 2004. 9. 2. 수협에서 대출받아 지급하였고, 나머지는 2004. 6. 21. 원고 소유의 다른 토지를 OOOO원에 매도하고 받은 대금 중에서 부친에게 OOOO원을 대여하였다가 2004. 10. 19. 이를 변제받아 OOOO원권 수표 1장을 김BB에게 지급하였다'고 주장한 반면, 김BB은 이 법정에서원고에게 이 사건 각 토지에 관한 소유권이전등기를 마쳐준 후 3년 정도의 기간 동안 여러 차례에 걸쳐서 나누어 받았는데, 현금으로 받은 것도 있고, 시가 OOOO원 상당의 트랙터를 대물변제받기도 하였으며, 창고에 있는 쌀까지 가져 온 적도 있다고 증언하였는바, 원고와 김BB의 위 각 진술은 서로 전혀 다른 내용인 점 등에 비추어 보면, ▷ 원고가 제출한 증거들만으로는, 원고가 이 사건 각 토지를 취득할 당시 실지의 거래대금 그 자체 또는 거래 당시의 급부의 대가로 실지 약정된 금액이 위 각 검인계약서상 기재된 합계 OOOO원이 아니라 OOOO원이었다고 인정하기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 그와 다른 전제에선 원고의 위 주장은 나머지 점에 관하여 살필 필요 없이 받아들일 수 없다.",3. 결론

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