It is unlawful to calculate the conversion value differently from the appraisal value solely on the ground that two or more appraisal corporations did not evaluate the appraisal value and to reach the disposition in this case.

The appraisal value was assessed in an objective and reasonable manner, and the appraisal value was determined to be the reliable appraisal value that was conducted within three months before and after the date of acquisition of the instant real estate, but it was unlawful to calculate the conversion value differently from the above appraisal value and to reach the instant disposition solely on the ground that no appraisal

Article 114 of the Income Tax Act

2013Gudan18004 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

The Director of the sericultural Tax Office

November 7, 2013

November 28, 2013

1. The disposition of imposition by the Defendant on February 1, 2013 against the Plaintiff of the capital gains tax of the year 2012 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of disposition;

A. After July 28, 2001, the Plaintiff is the owner of the land and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of the OO-Eup O-Eup OO-type 1682-3, 1682-4, 1683-1, and the OO-type accepted the said real estate from the Plaintiff on December 20, 201.

B. On February 28, 2012, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax calculated by applying the amount of KRW OO as the transfer value, on the ground that the appraisal value of one appraisal institution’s appraisal institution’s conversion value under the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is not an objective and reasonable assessment value, on the ground that the appraisal value of the real estate in this case is not the acquisition value, and that the conversion value under the conversion method under the Income Tax Act was the acquisition value of KRW OO of the transfer income tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on February 1, 2013, on the ground that the appraisal value of the real estate in this case was not an objective and reasonable assessment value.

C. On May 2, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination against the Plaintiff, but was dismissed on June 12, 2013.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Relevant statutes

Article 114 (7) of the Income Tax Act provides that where the transfer value or acquisition value is determined based on the actual transaction value, if it is impossible to recognize or confirm the actual transaction value at the time of transfer or acquisition of the relevant asset by books or other evidentiary documents, the transfer value or acquisition value may be determined or corrected by making an estimated investigation according to the transaction example, appraisal value, conversion value, or standard market price, etc. as prescribed by Presidential Decree. According to Article 176-2 (2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, where there is a case of sale of assets having the identity or similarity with the relevant assets within three months before or after the transfer or acquisition date, the said value; (2) the appraisal value assessed by 2 or more appraisal corporations on the relevant assets within three months before or after the transfer or acquisition date (limited to the appraisal date whose appraisal date is within three months after the transfer date or acquisition date, and (3) the actual transaction value at the time of transfer, the amount converted into the standard market price at the time of transfer, and (4) the value calculated by applying each standard market price in sequential order.

Meanwhile, the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the value of the property on which inheritance tax or gift tax is levied shall be the market price established in cases where a transaction is made freely between many and unspecified persons, and shall include the amount recognized as the market price under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as the expropriation, public sale price, appraisal price, etc. However, the matters stipulated in each subparagraph of the Enforcement Decree are merely a representative example that can be seen as the market price (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du23200, Jan. 14,

The market value means, in principle, an objective exchange price formed through normal transactions, but it includes the value assessed in an objective and reasonable manner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4761, Sept. 28, 1990). Thus, the established legal principle that the appraisal price of a reliable appraisal institution may be seen as a "market price" if there is no exchange price through transactions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4761, Sept. 28, 1990). Although the standard date of appraisal of the appraisal value deemed as the actual transaction price is limited to not more than three months before or after the date of transfer or acquisition, the appraisal by two or more appraisal corporations requests for appraisal, etc., it is understood that it is ultimately necessary to secure the fairness and truth of the appraisal result, and that the market value under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is a structure similar to the calculation of the actual transaction price under the Income Tax Act.

B. Determination

In light of the fact that there are no relevant documentary evidence, such as a sales contract on the instant real estate, and there are no other circumstances to deem that the objective market price on the instant real estate has been formed, it would be necessary to make a decision of estimation on the acquisition value as it is impossible to recognize or verify the actual transaction price. According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the appraisal of the value of the instant real estate at the request of the CCB appraisal corporation seeking to lend the instant real estate to the Plaintiff as collateral on August 11, 2001, it is recognized that the appraisal of the value of the real estate was calculated as the OOO by comprehensively taking into account various factors such as location, shape, environment, etc., such as the restrictions and use of the relevant real estate in the public law, such as the specific use area, etc. in the neighboring area of the instant real estate, and then the appraisal value should be calculated as the OOO based on the aforementioned calculation date and criteria, all the factors to be considered, and circumstances leading to the appraisal of the financial institution’s collateral loan.

3. Conclusion

A claim shall be accepted on the basis of the reasons therefor.