Review Transfer 2012-0133 (21. 2012.09)

The transfer value shall be determined by the actual confirmed price.

Considering the difference between the details of receipt of the purchase price stated in the sales contract and the details of receipt of the purchase price claimed by the Plaintiffs in the pre-trial procedure, and the fact that the sales contract for the purchaser was forged, it is reasonable to deem that the relevant land is transferred to KRW 000,000,000, not in fact taking any particular measures.

Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

2012Gudan30625 Revocation of Disposition of Tax Imposition

1.0A 2. United StatesB

Head of Mapo Tax Office

January 15, 2014

March 5, 2014

1. Among the instant lawsuits, the part of the Plaintiff’s primary claim, the part of the confirmation of invalidity of the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim, and the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the additional tax imposition disposition by the Plaintiff UB, respectively.

2. The remainder of the plaintiff 0A’s conjunctive claim and the remainder of the plaintiff 10B are dismissed, respectively.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Plaintiff 0A: (a) the Defendant’s imposition of the capital gains tax of April 24, 2012 on the Plaintiff on April 24, 2012 on the imposition of the OOOO in the capital gains tax of 2006 is primarily revoked and confirmed as invalid in preliminary

UB: The disposition of imposition by the Defendant on April 25, 2012 by the OOOOO in 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. On October 20, 2005, the plaintiffs, who are married couple, acquired 1/2 shares of each of the OO-1 forest 51-1 forest - 15,868 square meters and 51-2 forest -144 square meters (hereinafter "real estate in this case") at each O-gun on October 20, 2005, but transferred this on November 9, 2006, and filed a transfer income tax return on the premise that the transfer value is an OO-2 won. (b) The defendant dismissed the plaintiff's transfer value of the real estate in this case on April 24, 2012 on the ground that the actual transfer value of the real estate in this case is an OO-2 forest - O-2 forest - O-2 forest - O-2 forest - O-2 forest - O-2 forest - 10,000 won, each of the plaintiff's transfer income tax - 200 won and 20 O-20.2.

". On July 16, 2013, the defendant revoked the additional tax portion ex officio, and again rendered a decision to impose additional tax on the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "additional tax imposition disposition"). [The grounds for recognition], "A, 3, 4, 8-1 through 8-4, 11, 1-1 through 2-2, 1-1 through 2, 9 through 12, 18-1 through 19-2.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

Each disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds, thus seeking revocation, and seek a confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of this case No. 1 (the plaintiff's submission and statement of preparatory documents as of August 19, 2013 alone cannot be deemed to have lawfully changed to the dispute over the defect of the disposition of re-assessment of additional tax).

○ The actual transfer value of the instant real estate is an OOO.

○ The Defendant did not give prior notice of taxation prior to each disposition of this case.

3. Determination as to the unlawful part of the lawsuit of this case

A. The portion of the Plaintiff’s primary claim

The administrative litigation against the disposition imposing national taxes shall be filed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the decision on the request for examination or adjudgment (Article 56(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes), and according to the each description and record of evidence Nos. 56(3) and 9 and 11 of the Framework Act on National Taxes with respect to the disposition No. 1 of this case, the decision of dismissal on September 21, 2012 by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on the request for examination of Sep. 27, 2012 was served on the representative of the Plaintiff 0A. On the other hand, the lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the above disposition was filed only on December 27, 2012, which is 90 days after the lapse of 90 days from the lawsuit of this case. Accordingly, the part seeking the revocation of the disposition No. 1 of this case among the lawsuit of

B. The part on the confirmation of invalidity of the disposition imposing additional tax among the plaintiff's preliminary claims and the part on the plaintiff's UB's revocation of the disposition imposing additional tax

As seen earlier, since the imposition of additional tax among each of the dispositions in this case has already been revoked, no longer the disposition subject to revocation exists, and there is no reason to deem that there is a legal interest to confirm that the above revocation disposition is invalid, among the lawsuits in this case, the part on the claim for confirmation of invalidity of Plaintiff 0A on the imposition of additional tax and the part on the claim for revocation of Plaintiff BB is unlawful.

4. Determination as to the legitimacy of a principal tax imposition portion among each disposition of this case

A. Whether there was an error in calculating the actual transfer value of the real estate of this case

According to the evidence No. 2 (the authenticity of the document is recognized according to the authenticity of the personal part and the purport of the pleading), and evidence Nos. 3 through 10, the real transfer value of the real estate of this case is recognized as an OOO. On the other hand, the details of receipt of the purchase price as stated in the sales contract (A. 1) dated August 12, 2006 and the details of receipt of the purchase price (A. 9,10) alleged by the plaintiffs during the pre-trial proceeding are different, and the plaintiffs did not take any specific measures, while considering the fact that the sales contract (A. 2) as of June 12, 2006 was forged, the above facts of recognition cannot be back, solely on the basis of the evidence No. 1, 5, and 7.

B. Whether there is procedural error without receiving the notice of taxation notice

Article 81-15(1) and (2)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the pre-assessment review system may not be requested for the period from the date of notification of the results of tax investigation to the date of expiration of the exclusion period of national tax assessment to the date of expiration of the exclusion period of national tax assessment, since the taxpayer cannot request the pre-assessment review even if the tax authority notifies the pre-assessment of taxation, that is, if the period remains less than 3 months until the expiration of the exclusion period of national tax assessment, the tax authority cannot request the pre-assessment review of taxation before the expiration of the exclusion period of tax assessment, and thus, the remaining period of taxation can not be deemed as 20 months from the expiration of the exclusion period of tax assessment to 3 months, 200 months from the expiration of the exclusion period of tax assessment to 3 months from the date of notification of the pre-assessment of taxation.

(c) Conclusion

Therefore, since the main imposition portion of each of the dispositions in this case is legitimate, the plaintiff 0A's preliminary claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of the main imposition portion among the dispositions in this case 1 and the plaintiff 2's claim seeking revocation of the main imposition portion among the dispositions in this case 2 are all groundless.

5. Conclusion

Of the instant suit, the part of the Plaintiff’s primary claim, the part of the confirmation of invalidity of the Plaintiff’s primary claim, and the part of the Plaintiff’s primary claim, and the part of the claim for revocation of the Plaintiff’s primary claim, respectively. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim and the remainder of the Plaintiff’s UBB’s primary claim are dismissed.