Seoul Administrative Court 201Gudan19126 ( December 20, 2011)

Cho High Court Decision 201Do1565 (No. 21, 2011)

The self-assessment value of the financial institution shall not be deemed the appraisal value of the appraisal corporation.

The self-evaluation value of a financial institution, not the external appraisal value, cannot be deemed the value equivalent to the appraisal value assessed by the appraisal corporation under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act, and therefore it is legitimate to calculate the standard market value of land and buildings.

Article 166 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act

2012Nu2131 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

XX

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Gudan19126 decided December 20, 2011

May 18, 2012

July 13, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. In the first instance court, the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the Plaintiff on March 2, 2011 shall be revoked. In the first instance, the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the Plaintiff on March 2, 2011 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's decision is as follows: "Article 20-11 (4) of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as "paragraph (6)"; "The value of appraisal" in Part 7 is as follows: "The value of appraisal (in the case of interim payment or long-term installment sale, referring to the value of appraisal assessed by an appraisal corporation under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act from the commencement date of the taxable period immediately preceding the taxable period to which the time of supply under Article 21 belongs (in the case of interim payment or long-term installment sale, the first time of supply) is the time of supply under Article 21 to the end date of the taxable period to which the time of supply belongs; hereinafter the same shall apply in this paragraph)"; and it is identical to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to the purport of the Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2731 Decided November 26, 1991, the appraised value of a bank shall be deemed equivalent to the appraised value by a certified public appraisal corporation under Article 166(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 48-2(4) of the Value-Added Tax Act. Thus, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances cited above, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit in light of the overall purport of oral argument.

1) The above Supreme Court decision refers to the objective exchange value formed through normal transactions as a matter of principle under Article 170 (8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989). However, when it is difficult to verify such market value, the appraised value by objective and reasonable methods may also be deemed the market value, and the appraised value by employees of financial institutions shall also be deemed the appraised value in an objective and reasonable manner under certain conditions. It does not purport that the appraised value assessed by employees of financial institutions shall not be deemed the value equivalent to the appraised value assessed by an appraisal corporation under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act.

2) Article 166(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 48-2(4) of the Value-Added Tax Act stipulate that where there is an appraisal value appraised by an appraisal corporation under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act, it shall be calculated in proportion to that value

3) According to the fact-finding results with respect to this court 】 a national bank 】 a branch head of the Dong, the security appraisal work of a financial institution is divided into a self-evaluation and an external appraisal. The security appraisal price stated in subparagraph 4-1 and 2-2 appears to be the self-evaluation value, not the external appraisal value of a financial institution. The self-evaluation value, not the external appraisal value of a financial institution, shall not be deemed the value equivalent to the appraisal value assessed by an appraisal corporation

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.