Busan District Court-2018-Gu 20505 ( October 18, 2019)

The acquisition price of the land of this case cannot be deemed as KRW 60 million.

It is insufficient to recognize that the acquisition price of the land in this case is KRW 610 million, and there is no other evidence sufficient to recognize it.

Article 114 of the Income Tax Act: Determination, Revision and Notification of Tax Base and Amount of Transfer Income Tax

2019Nu20365 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

on October 14, 2019

on October 04, 2019

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 part of the Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 307,769,650 for the Plaintiff on June 5, 2017, which exceeds KRW 90,67,320, among the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 307,769,650

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 31, 2004, the Plaintiff made an agreement on six parcels of land, including the following: (a) ○○○○○ (the Plaintiff’s husband, ○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, 1312-1, 3,010 square meters; (b) 1312-2, 215 square meters per annum; (c) 1312-3, 519 square meters per annum; (d) 1312-5, 1312-5, 1312-5, 200 square meters per annum; (e) 73-15, 8,75 square meters per annum; and (e) 73-16, 967 square meters per annum; and (e) i.e., a payment contract for accord and satisfaction (hereinafter referred to as “payment contract for accord and satisfaction”); and (e) a payment contract for accord and satisfaction for the Plaintiff.

B. On June 3, 2004, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff on May 31, 2004 for the above six parcels of land (i.e., the instant payment contract).

C. On October 13, 2004, the Plaintiff registered the ownership transfer under his name with respect to 00 ○○○-1 forest land of 349 square meters, which was owned by ○○○○○ Metropolitan City on October 13, 2004, and sold the grounds for registration on October 13, 2004.

D. After that, on January 29, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 270,000,000,000 in ○○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, 1312-1,01,000 square meters. On March 19, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 1312-5,200 square meters in 9,0750 square meters in 130,000 per annum. On September 22, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred the ownership transfer registration on the aggregate of each of the above parcels of land, including KRW 1301-1,349 square meters in ri, 1312-2,215 square meters in ri, 73-15 square meters in ri, 73-163,967 square meters in ri.

E. The Plaintiff reported and paid capital gains tax for each transfer as follows.

F. Meanwhile, from April 10, 2017 to April 28, 2017, the Defendant calculated the acquisition value of each land of this case as the converted price (72,288,722 won) based on the individual person at the time of acquisition as indicated below by applying Article 97 (1) 1 (b) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter the same) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s investigation of capital gains tax on each land of this case was conducted with respect to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s denial of 506,168 won reported by the Plaintiff as the acquisition value of each land of this case, and that it is impossible to verify the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition.

2) Upon filing a return of capital gains tax, the Plaintiff included KRW 613 billion in other litigation and reconciliation costs, and KRW 8 million in brokerage commission, and KRW 650,000 in total, KRW 622,650,000 in necessary expenses for filing a tax return.

3) Pursuant to Article 176-2(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27829, Feb. 3, 2017), the standard market price at the time of transfer was calculated by multiplying the actual transaction price at the time of transfer by the amount obtained by dividing the standard market price at the time of transfer by the standard market price at the time of transfer (individual

In applying Article 97(2)2 of the former Income Tax Act and Article 163(6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27829, Feb. 3, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply), an amount equivalent to 3% of the officially assessed individual land price at the time of acquisition by estimated deduction (105,574 won) shall be calculated by estimated estimate, and on June 5, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a disposition on June 5, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). The total determined tax amount of KRW 415,806,694 (i.e., capital gains tax of KRW 374,250,737 + additional tax of KRW 26,621,369 + penalty tax of KRW 14,934,588) calculated by subtracting the already assessed tax amount of KRW 307,7650 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

G. Among each of the instant lands, ○○○○-gun ○○○-gun ○○○-gun ○○-15 Forest land was divided into 73-4 forest land of the same Ri on December 1, 2003, and 73-16 forest land of the instant case was divided into 0,000 on January 6, 2004, 73-15 forest land of the same Risan-ri 73-15 forest land of the instant case, and 73-16 forest land of each of the instant land of the instant land was published on June 30, 204 only on June 30, 2004.

In addition, on December 1, 2003, 1312-1 forest land of ○○○○○ ○○-Gun, ○○○-4 forest land of 1312-1 forest land of 13,514 square meters in the same Ri on December 1, 2003, and at the same time, 1312-2 land of 1312-2 road of 215 square meters and 1312-3 forest land of 1312-1 land of 1312-1 land of ○○○○○-1312-1 land of 3,010 square meters in the same Ri on March 22, 2004, each of the said land was divided into 1312-1 land of 3,010 square meters in the same Ri, 1312-4 large 5,290 square meters in the same Ri, 1312-5 large 1,200 and 1312-26 square meters in each.

The individual land price of each of the lands of this case, the base date, and the date of public announcement shall be as listed in the following table, in ○○-ri, ○○-ri, ○○-ri, ○○○-gun, ○○○, ○○-gun, prior to the said series of subdivisions

H. On August 16, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 16, 2017, but the Tax Tribunal decided to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on December 6, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 12, 13, 35, 36, Eul Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9

10, 19, 20 each statement (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s objection

Although ownership of each of the instant lands and seven parcels of land, such as ○○○○○, ○○○○○-Gun, ○○○○○○○○-gun, 1312-1 large 3,010 square meters, 1312-3 forest land and 519 square meters per annum, 1312-5 large 12-5 large 1200 square meters per annum, were transferred under the pretext of accord and satisfaction for pecuniary obligations of KRW 10 million from ○○○, the instant contract for accord and satisfaction was in form, and the said KRW 10 million was not the actual purchase price for each of the instant lands.

The actual purchase price for seven parcels of land, including each of the instant lands, is KRW 610 million. Of them, KRW 360 million was replaced by the repayment of monetary claims equivalent to the same amount that the Plaintiff possessed with respect to ○○○ at the time of the preparation of the instant payment contract for accord and satisfaction, and KRW 130 million was actually paid as the acquisition price around June 7, 2004, and the remainder KRW 120 million was replaced by the Plaintiff’s acceptance of monetary liabilities equivalent to the same amount for the Park○○○○○’s total amount of monetary liabilities, and the details are as follows.

1) On February 15, 2000, the Plaintiff loaned ○○○○○ Council, a husband, with the name of her husband, with KRW 30 million on February 15, 200, and KRW 30 million on July 20, 200, respectively, to return KRW 120 million on July 20, 200. On February 6, 2004, the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to ○○○○○○ Association, a husband, by means of remitting it to her wife’s account. On February 20, 2004, the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to ○○○○○○ Association, which was paid KRW 220 million on repayment from her husband’s meeting, and lent it by means of having her directly pay it to ○○○○.

Afterward, the Plaintiff loaned ○○ additional KRW 100 million on March 30, 2004, and KRW 20 million on May 14, 2004, respectively, and eventually, the total amount of monetary claims against ○○○ was KRW 360 million (=20 million + KRW 220 million + KRW 100 million + KRW 20 million + KRW 20 million). In lieu of the repayment, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the seven parcels of land, including each of the instant parcels of land.

2) On June 7, 2004, the Plaintiff additionally paid KRW 130 million to ○○○ upon the request of ○○○○ who was under investigation on the charge of embezzlement of ○○ church’s public funds.

3) In addition, the Plaintiff acquired the obligation to refund the purchase price of KRW 120 million, which ○○○ had been borne by ○○○ with respect to ○○○○○, ○○○○-gun, ○○○○○, ○○, ○○-gun, ○○○, ○○, ○○-gun, ○○, ○○-gun, ○○-gun, 755 square meters, and thereafter returned KRW 120 million to ○○ on March 7, 2014.

B. 610,101,340 won of each of the lands of this case, if the acquisition value of each of the lands of this case, including each of the lands of this case, is calculated proportionally based on the officially assessed individual land price as at the time of payment in substitutes, 450,101,340 won (=the acquisition value of each of the lands of this case + KRW 1312-2 land of Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and KRW 726,821 + KRW 296,027,225 won of each of the lands of this case + KRW 134,133,638 won of each of the lands of this case + KRW 1301-19,213,657, and below KRW 1000,000,000,000,000 won of each of the lands of this case, plus KRW 366,506,000,00 won of capital gains tax paid to each of the above acquisition value plus KRW 3636363.5,56365 million.

Therefore, since the defendant's disposition of this case imposing capital gains tax is unlawful, the excess portion should be revoked.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 1 is as shown in attached Table 1.

4. Determination

A. The illegality of the instant disposition

1) Whether the acquisition value of each land of this case is illegal to be calculated based on the conversion value, not based on the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition

In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the oral argument as seen earlier, the Plaintiff initially asserted that: (a) the inspection cost of hot spring hole was KRW 18.7 million; (b) the excavation work cost for confirmation of hot spring water; (c) KRW 14 million; and (d) the inspection cost for application for designation as a hot spring hole protection zone; and (d) the successful inspection cost of hot spring hole was KRW 80,50,050,000,000,00 as necessary expenses as capital expenditure; (c) however, in the “justifiable Tax Calculation Table attached to the application for change of purpose of claim and cause of claim as of July 15, 2019,” only KRW 13.5 million shall be included in the necessary expenses. In light of this, the Plaintiff’s final claim as necessary expenses is deemed only the aforementioned brokerage fee and tax accountant report agency fee; and (d) it is apparent that the assertion as to necessary expenses

In full view of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the acquisition price of seven parcels of land, including each of the instant parcels of land, is KRW 610 million, and there is no other evidence sufficient to recognize the acquisition price.

Therefore, since each land of this case constitutes a case where the actual transaction price cannot be confirmed at the time of acquisition, there is no illegality in the disposition of this case, which is calculated on the basis of the conversion price.

① The Plaintiff’s assertion is in form a “existing debt amount of KRW 10 million, which is indicated as substitute for the transfer price under the instant contract for payment in substitutes, and the actual transfer price is KRW 360 million in the existing debt amount, KRW 130 million in the additional payment, and KRW 120 million in the assumption of obligation amount, including KRW 120 million in the additional payment, and KRW 610 million in the aggregate.

However, on February 15, 2017, the Plaintiff made the following statements on the form of visiting the property tax and the property tax on each land of this case, i.e., "it is urgently acquired the ownership transfer at the level of securing the claim because it has not received the money lent to ○○○○, and at the time of transferring the ownership, it shall be the payment in kind at the office of a certified judicial scrivener at the time of transferring the ownership, and shall prepare a payment in kind and acquire the ownership transfer." "In the case of this recommendation at the office of a certified judicial scrivener, it shall be the payment in kind," "The amount of KRW 10 million stated in the contract shall be the amount written voluntarily," "The amount of KRW 10 million shall be the amount written voluntarily," and "in the case of the principal's own opinion, the amount shall not be important, but it shall be recorded in the amount of the money borrowed, and it shall be recorded in the office of a certified judicial scrivener at his own discretion without any consideration, and there shall be no other comments in the contract."

The amount of loan extended to ○○○○ at the time is KRW 50 million, and even if the amount of loan extended to ○○○○○, it is the same as preparing a written contract because it is not important because it is the fact that the amount of loan extended to ○○○○○○○○ at the time of preparation of the written contract would be repaid in some amount of loan extended to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

After that, on April 13, 2017, the Plaintiff made the following statements, namely, “after visiting ○○ Tax Office on February 15, 2017, the certificate of registration was taken out and confirmed at ○○○ Tax Office, and the KRW 10 million stated in the substitute payment contract was confirmed as the aggregate of the sales amount under the real estate sales contract, attached to the certificate of registration purchased by ○○○○○.”

According to the above plaintiff's statement, at the time of entering into the payment contract of this case, the plaintiff and Lee ○ (or his or her wife) have transferred or acquired seven parcels of land including each of the land of this case at the time of entering into the payment contract of this case at KRW 610 million, and part of them is substituted by the repayment of the existing monetary claim, or Park ○○.

It does not seem that an agreement was made to pay a debt in the manner of accepting the debt against it.

② ○○, the former owner of seven parcels of land, including each of the instant lands, is the husband of the Plaintiff.

In the form of ○○○, the Plaintiff is in a special relation with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff seems to have prepared the instant accord and satisfaction contract between ○○○ and ○○○, the wife of ○○○○, inasmuch as there is a risk that the said seven parcels of land may be returned, and the Plaintiff seems to have immediately prepared the instant accord and satisfaction contract. At the time, there is no lack of confirmation or evaluation of the market price of the said parcels of land in order to determine the transfer price for the seven parcels of land, including each of the instant parcels of land, and there is no lack of specific amount of

③ There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff and ○○○○ had reached an agreement on the settlement of claims according to payment in kind at the time of the preparation of the instant payment in kind.

④ The Plaintiff asserted that ○○○ lending of money equivalent to KRW 220 million to ○○○ by having ○○○○○○○ directly pay 20 million to ○○○○○○○, which is the husband’s husband. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that ○○○○○ level paid 220 million to ○○○○ upon ○○’s request by ○○○○○○, instead of directly paying 20 million money to ○○○○○, and there is no other evidence sufficient to acknowledge this.

In addition, the plaintiff argued that he acquired monetary claims of KRW 340 million, including the above KRW 220 million from Park○○○, as the transfer price for seven parcels of land including each of the instant land, and that the monetary claims were the transfer price for seven parcels of land including each of the instant land, but the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence sufficient to acknowledge it otherwise.

⑤ According to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was found to have remitted KRW 130 million to ○○○○○ on June 7, 2004. However, in light of the fact that the time when the Plaintiff wired the said money to ○○○○○, the time when the Plaintiff concluded the instant payment contract and completed the ownership transfer registration under the Plaintiff’s name for each of the instant lands, it is difficult to view the said money as the name of the transfer/acquisition price for the seven parcels of land including the instant land, and there is no other evidence sufficient to acknowledge it otherwise.

(6) The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that ○○○ was liable for the refund of the purchase price of KRW 120 million, which was borne by ○○○ to Park○○, and that it was part of the transfer price of seven parcels of land including each of the instant land. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept in light of the following purport: (a) the Plaintiff did not fully know at the time of the preparation of the instant payment contract, namely, the fact of trading between ○○ and ○○○ at the time of the preparation of the instant payment contract; and (b) the fact that ○○ was not aware that ○○ was liable for the refund of the purchase price of KRW 120 million,00,000,000,00

7) The standard market price of seven parcels of land, including the instant land, at the time of 2004, is KRW 89,842,567, and the standard market price at the time of transfer (the publicly announced land price) is KRW 416,819,260, and the actual sale price at the time of transfer is set higher than the officially announced land price, it is difficult to readily understand that the price of the said seven parcels of land was set at KRW 610,00,000, which is approximately KRW 6.7 times higher than the standard market price at the time of the transfer (the publicly announced land price) in light of the empirical rule of the general public.

④ The Plaintiff asserts that the land in each of the instant case was included in Ulsan-gun’s two documents and 1301-1 forest land and 349 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, but was mistakenly omitted in the process of preparing the instant payment contract, and that ownership was transferred separately from this ○○ on October 13, 2014. However, such assertion is difficult to believe that it was in light of the ordinary person’s empirical rule and real estate transaction practice, and it is difficult to believe that the ownership transfer registration was made for sale on October 3, 2004, instead of the said ○○○-ri 1301-1 forest and 349 square meters (i.e., the instant payment contract).

① On January 29, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred 7 parcels of land, including each of the instant land, to a third party, ○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, 3,010 square meters. On March 31, 2014, when filing a report on capital gains tax pursuant thereto, the Plaintiff reported the acquisition value of the said parcels of land to KRW 5,864,616, in proportion to the standard market price of the said seven parcels of land, namely, the following amount:

In addition, on March 17, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred ○○○○ ○○, ○○○, ○○-Gun, ○○○○, ○○○, among the above seven parcels of land on March 17, 2015, large 1,200 square meters to another; and on May 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a transfer income tax report thereon.

Even if the acquisition value of the above land is indicated in the payment contract of this case as follows:

The amount of KRW 10 million was reported as KRW 3,629,216, divided in proportion to the standard market price of the above 7 parcels of land.

However, if the actual acquisition price of seven parcels of land, including the above ○○○○-ri 1312-1 large 3,010 square meters, including 1312-5 large 12,200 square meters, is KRW 610,000,000 as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to understand the reasons for calculating the acquisition price of the above ○○-ri 1312-1 large 301 square meters and 1312-5 large 12,200 square meters as alleged by the Plaintiff at the time of filing a report on capital gains tax, based on the amount of KRW 610,000,000,000 as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the reasons for calculating the acquisition price of the above ○○-ri 1312-5 large 30,000 square meters,

2) Whether it is unlawful to deduct the estimated deduction amount, not the actual expenses, from the necessary expenses

A) Article 97(1) of the former Income Tax Act provides for the acquisition value of necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value in calculating gains on transfer (Article 97(1) of the same Act, capital expenditure, etc. prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 2 of this Act, referred to as "capital expenditure"), transfer expense, etc. prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as "transfer expense"), and Article 97(2)2 of the same Act provides that where the acquisition value is converted based on the conversion value as it is impossible to verify the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition, necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value shall be the sum of the estimated deduction amount prescribed by Presidential Decree for each asset, on the condition that if the sum of the conversion value and the estimated deduction amount is less than the sum of capital expenditure and transfer expenses, the sum

B) The former Income Tax Act requires a taxpayer to calculate the acquisition value based on the conversion value, etc. in cases where it is impossible to verify the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of assets, and thus, the acquisition value is to be calculated based on the conversion value, etc. In light of the fact that the taxpayer did not verify whether it was actually paid or not, it is necessary to deduct necessary expenses, such as capital expenditure or transfer expenses, etc. from the necessary expenses, and to allow the deduction of the estimated expense amount based on a certain standard from the reasonable standpoint to the necessary expenses. Therefore, in cases where the acquisition value, which is one of the necessary expenses deducted from the transfer value, is based on the conversion value at the time of acquisition of assets, the taxpayer shall, in principle, not be allowed to deduct the estimated expenses, other than the estimated expense deduction amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du24286, Oct. 15, 201

C) According to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is recognized that the Plaintiff paid 8 million won brokerage commission in connection with the transfer of each of the instant lands, and 5.5 million won in the transfer income tax reporting agency fee, respectively.

However, since each of the instant lands constitutes a case where it is impossible to verify the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition as seen earlier, necessary expenses should be the sum of the estimated deduction amount in accordance with Article 97(2)2 of the former Income Tax Act. However, in cases where the capital expenditure and the total transfer expenses exceed the sum of the estimated deduction amount in the conversion value, the sum of the capital expenditure and the total transfer expenses may be recognized as necessary expenses. As seen earlier, the sum of the estimated deduction amount in the conversion value is 72,394,296 (=i.e., KRW 72,28,722 + KRW 105,574), which is the sum of the capital expenditure and transfer expenses (=8 million + KRW 5,500,000), and thus, the said expenses actually paid by the Plaintiff cannot be deducted as necessary expenses.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without further review.

3) An error in the application of the officially assessed individual land price in calculating the acquisition value (converted value) of 215 square meters of ○○-ri, ○○-gun, ○○○○-gun, ○○○○○○-gun, 1312-2, and

A) In cases where it is impossible to recognize or confirm the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition, the acquisition price may be determined as the conversion price, as prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 114(7) of the former Income Tax Act). In such cases, the conversion price at the time of transfer 】 the actual transaction price at the time of transfer 】 the standard market price at the time of transfer / the standard market price at the time of transfer / (3) (Article 176-2(2)2 and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act). In addition, the standard market price for calculation of conversion price is, in principle, the officially assessed individual land price for land (Article 99(1)1 (a) of the former Income Tax Act), and where a new standard market price is acquired or transferred

As to the instant case, the Defendant’s health room and the Defendant’s land of each of the instant case ○○ Metropolitan City ○○-gun ○○○.

In calculating the acquisition value (converted value) of 215 square meters of a road, the instant disposition was rendered based on the converted value based on the 1,780 won/m2, which was the officially announced individual land price in 2014 (i.e., the publicly announced individual land price in June 30, 2014) and the 1,780 square meters of the said land. However, on December 1, 2013, the said 00 square meters for 215 square meters of a road 1312-2 and 215 square meters of a forest in ○○○-Gun, ○○○-gun, Seoul, ○○○-gun, ○○○-do, ○○-si, ○○○-si, ○○○-si, and on the other hand, on June 3, 2004 when the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name with respect to 215 square meters of a road.

Around June 30, 2004, the officially announced individual land price (1,780 m2/m2) in 2014 square meters (1,780 m2) was officially announced (a child).

Until June 30, 2014, the officially assessed individual land price of forest land in 2014, which was publicly announced on June 30, 2014, prior to the division and registration conversion, and the officially assessed individual land price in 2013, of forest land in 00-ri, 73-4 forest land before the division and registration conversion.

(Publicly announced individual land price on June 30, 2003) is KRW 234/m2, as seen earlier.

Therefore, in calculating the acquisition value of the above land at the time of June 3, 2004, when the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 00 square meters in ○○○-ri ○○○○○-gun ○○○○○○○○○○○-gun, 1312-2, road 215 square meters, there was no publicly announced individual land price as to the above land at the time of acquiring the ownership of the above land. Accordingly, in calculating the acquisition value of the above land, the officially assessed individual land price in 2013 at ○-Gun, ○

Nevertheless, in calculating the acquisition value of the above ○○○○○-2-2 road 215 square meters, the Defendant calculated the conversion value based on the officially assessed individual land price of the above land in 2014 and made the instant disposition based on it. Ultimately, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B) However, even if the taxation authority erred in the calculation method, etc. of the tax authority in the process of specifically calculating and determining the tax base and amount of tax imposed by the taxpayer pursuant to the provisions of tax-related Acts, if the tax amount imposed and notified so does not exceed the scope of the legitimate amount to be borne by the taxpayer, and if the erroneous method does not vary from the scope of the tax unit and the reason for the disposition, the imposition and notification disposition within the scope of the legitimate amount of tax should not be revoked (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Nu10695, Jul. 28, 1992).

However, according to the above evidence and evidence evidence evidence Nos. 17 and evidence Nos. 17, the transfer income tax amount calculated by applying the above ○○○○-ri ○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○, 1312-2 land to the above ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ 73-4 forest land in 2003 is 37,532,875 won, and the income tax amount of the transfer income tax calculated by applying the above 26,949,583 won, plus 15,118,716 won, and additional tax for bad faith in payment, 419,601,174 won (=37,532,875 won + 26,949,583 won + 15,118,716 won). As such, the transfer income tax amount calculated by the Defendant by applying the wrong individual individual land price to the total amount of the transfer income tax of this case is 3704,75,746,7.

The scope of the fixed tax amount shall not exceed the scope thereof.

Therefore, the tax amount imposed and notified as the disposition of this case is within the scope of the legitimate tax amount, and the error in the application of the officially assessed individual land price in the process of calculating the conversion price, which is the acquisition value, cannot be deemed to vary in the scope of the taxation unit or the grounds for disposition, so the disposition of this case cannot be revoked.

B. Sub-determination

Ultimately, since the instant disposition cannot be deemed unlawful, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking its revocation is without merit.

5. Conclusion

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

shall be determined as above.