The early high-2014-China-0135

Any disposition imposing capital gains tax on the value verified by the sales contract, etc. with the real transfer value of the right to sell shall be legitimate.

After acquiring the right to sell lots, it can be recognized that he/she directly transferred the proceeds by being paid with the premium separately, and there is no evidence to reverse the fact of recognition that served as the basis for the disposition of this case, the taxation imposed is legitimate.

Article 94 (1) of the Income Tax Act

Suwon District Court 2014Gudan2489 ( January 15, 2016)

Seoul High △△△

○ Head of tax office

November 27, 2015

January 15, 2016

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 83,097,690 on September 1, 2013 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired a purchase contract for KRW 483,221,00 on April 28, 201, after having been finally determined on December 11, 2007 by 00 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Housing Site Development Zone’s five block 5-2 housing lot sale right (hereinafter “instant sale right”) as the Plaintiff’s housing located in the instant ○○○○○○○○○○○ Housing Site Development Zone was incorporated into the said ○○○○ Housing Site Development Zone. The Plaintiff transferred the instant sale right to the ○○○○○○ Housing on May 11, 201.

B. Upon reporting the transfer income tax on the right to sell the instant case to the Defendant, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax to KRW 483,221,00, which is the same price as the purchase price, to the Defendant.

C. As a result of a field investigation around June 2013, the Defendant: (a) received a separate payment of KRW 190,000 from the premium when the Plaintiff transferred the instant sales right; and (b) rendered the instant disposition that corrected and notified the transfer income tax of KRW 83,097,00 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff in September 6, 2013.

D. The Plaintiff filed a tax appeal on December 6, 2013, but was dismissed on April 21, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of evidence Nos. 2 and 3 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On February 2, 2004, the Plaintiff already transferred the instant house owned by the Plaintiff to ○○○, which is entitled to acquire the instant sales right, and it is merely a sales contract to prepare a sales contract as if the Plaintiff transferred the said house to ○○○○○, but it was later transferred to ○○ and finally acquired by ○○.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff did not actually receive the above transfer margin from Park○○, the instant disposition is unlawful under the principle of substantial taxation.

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence Nos. 2, 7, and 10 of the evidence Nos. 2, 7, and 10 of the witness’s testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff acquired the instant sales right from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in the above 483,221,00 won and received the sales right to KRW 673,221,00 in the aggregate by separately paying KRW 190,000 in the sales right (i.e., KRW 483,221,00 + KRW 190,000) and received the price by transferring it directly to ○○○○○○○○ prior to the acquisition of the instant sales right, and the testimony by ○○○○○○○○○○ in the witness evidence and the testimony by 1,2, and 3 of the witness 190,000 won are asserted by the Plaintiff. There is no other evidence supporting the above facts.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.