The acquisition value of the real estate of this case is legitimate, which is converted and applied in an unclear manner.

The acquisition value of the real estate of this case is legitimate, which is converted and applied in an unclear manner.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses in Transfer Income)

2016-Gu -1688 Revocation of Disposition of Refusal to Change Transfer Income Tax

AA

O Head of tax office

2017.024

2017.03.03

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's refusal to correct or correct the transfer income tax for the year 2013 against the plaintiff on June 30, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(1) On June 22, 199, the Plaintiff purchased ○-○ land and buildings in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, through a public auction procedure executed by the Korea Asset Management Corporation. On October 8, 1999, from Suwon-si, the Plaintiff purchased ○-○ land and buildings in Suwon-si, Suwon-si from BB, Suwon-si, and on November 30, 199, from Suwon-si, the Plaintiff purchased ○-○-○ land and buildings in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”). On September 30, 2001, the Plaintiff constructed a new building on the said ○-○-○, ○-○-○-○○-○ land. After that, on September 11, 201, 7 square meters, part of the said ○-○ land was divided into ○-○, and the remainder was combined into 10-9 square meters.

On December 12, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred 1,144 square meters of land and 5,939.11 square meters of buildings and 18,960,000, and the acquisition value to the Defendant on February 28, 2014 as KRW 8,227,697,085 (applicable to the instant real estate and the conversion value for the instant ○-○○-○ and the instant ○-○ and buildings) in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Seoul-si, and reported and paid as KRW 2,581,048,927 of capital gains tax to the Defendant on December 28, 2014.

Abstract, the Defendant confirmed the actual acquisition value of the above ○-○ land and building, and corrected and notified the Plaintiff of capital gains tax of KRW 715,997,470 on December 1, 2014, and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection thereto.

On March 12, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction to the effect that “the actual acquisition value is confirmed to be KRW 1,100,000,000 based on the sales contract and the financial evidence verification of the instant real estate,” and the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction to correct the transfer income tax for the year 2013 according to the said actual transaction value. However, on June 30, 2015, the Defendant rejected the claim for correction on the ground that “the copy of the sales contract submitted to the Plaintiff at the time of filing a request for correction is not prepared on November 1, 199, but rather deemed to be a false contract prepared recently.”

(v) The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 25, 2015, but the Tax Tribunal decided to dismiss the said appeal on April 1, 2016.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(1) According to Article 97(1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 20, 2016), the acquisition value, one of the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value, when calculating gains on transfer of a resident, shall, in principle, be based on the actual transaction value incurred in the acquisition of the relevant assets in case of land and buildings, and where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition, it shall be based

The plaintiff asserted that the actual purchase price of the instant real estate is KRW 1.1 billion and submitted a sales contract (Evidence No. 2 of the A), the details of passbook transaction (Evidence No. 4 and 6 of the A), the statement of the number of shares per books (Evidence No. 5 of the A), and the confirmation of facts (Evidence No. 7-1 of the A), but it is reasonable to view that each of the above evidence and witness are not attributable to the testimony of the JJ and that the actual purchase price of the instant real estate is not confirmed as follows. Thus, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion of grounds for appeal is without merit.

First, the sales contract submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant when filing a claim for correction is not evidence No. 2, but evidence No. 2. The evidence No. 2 contains the following: (i) the purchase price (1.10 million won), the intermediate payment (10 million won), the remainder (50 million won), and the remainder (50 million won) are all different; and (ii) there are no separate special terms and conditions, and (iii) there is room to view that the evidence No. 2 was a genuine document. However, even if the evidence No. 2 submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, it is difficult to find that the evidence No. 2 was not a copy of the sales contract and the evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff’s signature and seal No. 3 as evidence, in light of the fact that the evidence No. 2 submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant without an individual column.

Second, the Plaintiff asserted that YY paid 10 million won for the down payment on November 30, 1999, 400 million won for the intermediate payment on February 29, 200, 100 won for some remainder on April 19, 200, and 40 million won for the remainder on April 29, 200, respectively. However, the payment of 40 billion won for the intermediate payment and remainder on April 29, 200 is different from the intermediate payment and remainder payment payment date indicated in Gap evidence 2; 200 million won for the down payment, even with the entry in Gap evidence 4, it is difficult to recognize that YY was paid for the remainder on October 8, 199, as part of 40 billion won for the intermediate payment under the Plaintiff’s name, Y20 billion won for the intermediate payment under the Plaintiff’s deposit account, and Y40 billion won for the remainder payment under the Plaintiff’s cashier’s name.

Third, in full view of the purport of the argument in the statement in Eul evidence No. 4, the time when the business district around Suwon City, in which the pertinent real estate in this case was located is activated, can be acknowledged that the land purchased from KK General Construction Co., Ltd. to construct VVV (O-OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O) for the land purchased to build VVVV-V-V-(222 million won or 23 million won per square year, after the opening of the water datum of the department store around

(1) The witness J testified to the effect that, at the time of the purchase of the instant real estate, the market price of the instant real estate was KRW 7 million or KRW 8 million per square year, and the low price was KRW 10 million per square year.On the other hand, the witness JJ testified to the effect that, before the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate, the Plaintiff later purchased the instant real estate at a higher level than KRW 3 million per square year or KRW 4 million, and that the purchase price was at a higher level than that of the instant real estate, it is difficult to understand that the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate at KRW 31 million per square year or KRW 4 million per square year. As such, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to purchase the instant real estate at a higher level than that of the instant building solely on the ground that the seller had no intention to sell the instant real estate in order to secure the pertinent real estate at a higher level than that of the instant building.

Fourth, according to the copy of the register on the key real estate of this case (Evidence A 3), the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 20, 200 with respect to the key real estate of this case can be acknowledged. According to this, the plaintiff was transferred the registration of ownership under the condition that only 100 million won out of the remainder 550 million won claimed by the plaintiff was paid, and the plaintiff had no choice to purchase the real estate at a price much less than that of the neighboring market due to the seller's refusal of sale. It is an exceptional circumstance that the plaintiff received the registration of ownership transfer under the condition that 450 million won out of the purchase price was unpaid. Accordingly, it is difficult for the plaintiff to claim that the tenant paid the remainder to the first floor of this case where the tenant in the first floor of this case was late, and that the tenant would have paid the remainder to the 500 billion won in advance of the lease price of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.