Since the acquisition value originally reported by the plaintiff at the time of transfer may be recognized, disposal by conversion value shall be illegal.

It is reasonable to deem that the date of the instant sales contract has long elapsed on November 7, 1996, and it is difficult for the Plaintiff to have kept the original copy of the sales contract, and that the Plaintiff was proved to have been 000 won reported by the Plaintiff, by recognizing the acquisition value of the Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Plaintiff as his transfer value.

Suwon District Court 2013Gudan4051 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Transfer Income Tax

KimA

00. Head of tax office

December 17, 2014

January 14, 2015

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 0000 on December 11, 2012 against the Plaintiff on December 11, 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 the disposition;

A. On November 7, 1996, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the purchase and sale (hereinafter referred to as “sale of this case”) of 96-1852 (including buildings and the parts on the ground) with 00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 cCC (hereinafter referred to as “land location”) by the agent of BB, without distinguishing the administrative district before and after the change of the name of the administrative district, unless there are special circumstances.

[The Evidence A No. 1 states that the purchase price is KRW 000,000 (the average price of KRW 9.50,000) and the down payment is paid at the time of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 00,000,000 at the time of November 17, 1996, and the remainder of KRW 000 is agreed to pay each other on November 28, 1996).]

B. The Plaintiff completed each registration of transfer of ownership on November 28, 1996, 00 00 00 00 -00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 96-1, 2 (00 - 96-2 through 96-3, 96-4 as seen below, 00 - 96-1, and 96-1 through 4 hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant lands") for each of the instant lands.

C. On the ground of 00 dong 96-2, the Plaintiff newly constructed a cable communication device manufacturing business of 198 square meters per 1 story, an wire communication device manufacturing business of 2-dong 198 square meters per 2-story, an office, a toilet, a toilet, and an cable communication device manufacturing business of 198 square meters per 3-dong 1 story (hereinafter “instant building”). The Plaintiff completed registration of initial ownership on May 29, 2000 registry office as 0000 received on May 29, 2001.

D. On August 25, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred 1/2 of each share to EE and FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant transfer”) jointly with DD, the owner of each of the instant land and the instant building, etc. (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).

E. As to the transfer of this case, the Plaintiff reported and paid to the Defendant the acquisition value of the instant real estate amounting to KRW 000 (=land (actual land transaction value) + KRW 000 + building (converted value) + KRW 000 calculated as necessary expenses).

F. On December 11, 2012, the Defendant considered the acquisition value of the instant real estate as KRW 000 [the instant land +000 won (the instant building] + imposition of KRW 201,972,930 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) for the instant transfer to the Plaintiff on December 11, 2012.

G. On March 8, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on May 28, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including numbers of paper), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant sales contract was concluded between the Plaintiff at the home of GG and CCC, the actual owner of each of the instant land, who was punished by the former owner BB.

(2) The Plaintiff paid KRW 000,000 out of the instant purchase price of KRW 000,000 from October 7, 1996 to April 2, 1997, and paid KRW 00,000 to the Plaintiff’s account. The Plaintiff borrowed cash (the Plaintiff’s real estate was sold and received) possessed by the Plaintiff at the time and the amount borrowed from GG or borrowed from GG to G.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts can be acknowledged according to the evidence stated in the evidence No. 5 of the above.

(1) The ownership and division of each of the instant lands

(A) BB completed the registration of ownership transfer made on June 26, 1987, No. 0000 on June 26, 1987, with respect to 00 Dong 96-1, 96-1, 2,819 square meters.

(B) On November 16, 1995, 00 m2,819 m2,00 m2,00 m2,819 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00 m2,000 m2,00 m2,00 m2,000 m2,000

(C) On January 24, 2000, a 00-dong 96-2 2,094 square meters was divided into a 1,975 square meters and a 00-dong 96-2 1,975 square meters and a 00-dong 96-3 119 square meters.

(D) On August 27, 2008, a 00-dong 96-2 1,975 square meters was divided into 1,648 square meters and 327 square meters prior to 00-dong 96-2 and 00-dong 96-4 square meters.

(2) Plaintiff’s real estate and financial transaction details

(A) On May 13, 1996, the Plaintiff sold to HH the purchase price of KRW 00:00,000 for KRW 29,30 for KRW 000 for KRW,000 for KRW, on October 28, 1996, JJ (Share 661/827), and KK (Share 166/827) for KRW 00 for KRW 00 for KRW 00 for KRW 00 for KRW 379-3 for KRW 000 for KRW, on March 20, 1997, KRW 00 for KRW 00 for KRW 00 for KRW 185-7 for KRW 000 for each purchase price (the aggregate of each purchase price is KRW 000 for each purchase price).

(B) From October 7, 1996 to April 2, 1997, the Plaintiff withdrawn a total of KRW 0000 from its financial account (see the Plaintiff’s amendment on October 13, 2014).

(C) On December 20, 1996, the Plaintiff borrowed (credit loans) KRW 40,000 from a cooperative on December 20, 199, with the maturity fixed on December 20, 199.

C. Determination

(1) Generally, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements is imposed.

tax requirements in light of the rules of experience in the course of a specific proceeding.

If it is proved that the taxpayer is presumed to have been involved, the rule of experience

The application of such rules of experience in the case at issue is not appropriate or such application is not appropriate.

unless it is proved that there is a special reason to exclude, etc.

It cannot be readily concluded that a taxation disposition is an unlawful disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirements (Supreme Court)

May 29, 2014 (Supreme Court Decision 2014Du2027).

(2) The tax base is the proof of income and necessary expenses, as the necessary expenses are deducted from income.

In principle, liability shall also be borne by the tax authority, but necessary expenses shall be favorable to the taxpayer.

In addition, most of the facts giving rise to necessary expenses are controlled by the taxpayer.

Since the tax authority is located in the territory and it is difficult for the tax authority to prove it.

If it is difficult to prove, or the equity between the parties, etc., the taxpayer may prove.

reasonable, it is fair to recognize the necessity of proof to the taxpayer.

In line with the concept (Supreme Court Decision 2006Du16137 Decided October 26, 2007).

(3) Determination

(A) We examine whether the purchase price stated in No. 1 No. 1 can be recognized as the actual transaction price.

(B) We examine the following circumstances, i.e., the facts found earlier, as shown in the record:

○ From October 7, 1996 to April 2, 1997, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 000 from the Plaintiff’s financial account. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 200,000 on December 20, 1996. From May 13, 1996 to March 20, 197, the Plaintiff sold real estate of KRW 00,000 and received KRW 000,000 in total from the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract. As such, the Plaintiff secured the acquisition fund of approximately KRW 00,000 at the time of the instant sales contract [it was not set up for the purpose of raising the purchase price in the instant land, and even based on the records, the Plaintiff had already owned KRW 33-27 of the instant land at the time of the instant sales contract at the time of 00,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000.

Before the division, 00 Dong 96-1 is about 2,819 square meters and approximately 854 square meters, which is in fact consistent with the size stated in Gap evidence 1 (as at the time of the instant sales contract, 00 Dong 96-2 was already divided in 00 Dong 96-1 and 96-1, it is reasonable for the parties to enter the object to be sold into '00 Dong 96-1 and 2'; however, it cannot be readily concluded that the object to be sold is not specified or that there was an error in the description of the object, and the size is 00 Dong 96-1 and 2.)

○ The date of the conclusion of the instant sales contract is November 7, 1996, and it is difficult to expect that the Plaintiff would keep the original copy of the instant sales contract after the lapse of a long time until the transfer of the instant case.

BB, the seller of the instant sales contract, also recognizes the acquisition value of the Plaintiff’s assertion as his transfer value (see, e.g., evidence 5)

○ At the time of November 7, 1996, the Defendant alleged that the BB’s address at the time of 1996 is 00Do00,000 00 00 025,000 100 025, the evidence No. 1 was written differently. However, according to the closed register certificate concerning 00 Dong 96-1, the fact that the BB’s address on the register is 00 00 00 00 00 62 00 00 00 00 00 62.

○ In preparing a real estate sales contract, the parties must use a contract with the seal affixed affixed thereto and affix their seal affixed thereto, or the personal information of each party is not necessary to be written in writing.

○ At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff’s domicile is 00 00 00 Do 00 Do 000 Do 33-27, and the Plaintiff’s domicile is adjacent to the location of each of the instant land. Considering that the Plaintiff’s domicile is adjacent to the location of each of the instant land, it cannot be deemed that concluding a sales contract

○ In the calculation of gains on transfer, the actual transaction price, which is the basis for the calculation of gains on transfer, is not a general market price that reflects the objective exchange value, but an actual transaction price itself or at the time of transaction, refers to the amount actually agreed as the price for payment (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du7171, Apr. 26, 2007). Therefore, it is not directly related to the standard market price (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du7171, Apr. 26

According to Article 81-3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, considering the fact that the acquisition value, which is necessary expenses for the transfer of this case, is 000 won as alleged by the Plaintiff, is the actual transaction value. Thus, the disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.