It can not be said that objective evidence has been presented to prove that the acquired value of the issue was paid to the former owner and the real estate intermediary.

Since there is no objective evidence to recognize the acquisition price and real estate brokerage fee paid to the former owner and the real estate intermediary, the acquisition price at issue may not be recognized.

Article 94 (Scope of Transfer Income)

2015Guhap20948 Partial Revocation of Transfer Income Tax Imposition Disposition

AA

The Director of the PPP Tax Office

October 15, 2015

November 05, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000,000,000 for the year 2003 against the Plaintiff on May 13, 2014 is revoked in excess of KRW 00,00,000.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Between Busan Metropolitan City and Busan Metropolitan City on February 26, 2002, ZZ entered into a land supply contract with the Busan Metropolitan City on the condition that the ZZ will purchase 525 square meters of commercial land in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”) from Busan Metropolitan City for the purchase of 00,000,000 square meters of commercial land in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land supply contract”). From February 26, 2002, the Busan Metropolitan City paid 1 intermediate payment of 00,000,000,000,000 won on August 26, 2002, and the intermediate payment of 26,000,000,0000 won on or around February 26, 2003.

B. Since then, the Z transferred the right to acquire the land of this case to the Plaintiff, and accordingly on July 2, 2003, the status of the purchaser under the land supply contract of this case was succeeded to the Plaintiff from the Z to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “first transfer”). The Z transferred the right to acquire the land of this case to the Plaintiff as the above). The Z reported the transfer income tax pursuant to the first transfer, and reported the transfer value at KRW 00,000,000 upon reporting the transfer income tax pursuant to the first transfer.

C. Meanwhile, as of July 7, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with VV to transfer the right to acquire the instant land in price of KRW 00,000,000 (Evidence A) and the Plaintiff and V agreed to sell the instant land at the time of the conclusion of the contract at the time of the said contract (the instant land supply contract) and the third intermediate payment. The transfer price report is governed by the seller’s intention. The Plaintiff paid KRW 00,000 in the Busan Metropolitan City around August 18, 2003, and on August 20, 2003, the Plaintiff succeeded from V to the Plaintiff’s status of purchaser under the instant land supply contract (hereinafter “transfer of the right to acquire the instant land”).

D. On October 13, 2003, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax on the second transfer of October 2, 2003, and paid the transfer income tax of KRW 000,000,000,000, not in the actual transfer value, and the acquisition value of KRW 00,000,000 (=transfer value of KRW 00,000,000 reported by the Z + the third intermediate payment of KRW 00,000,000 paid by the Plaintiff to Busan Metropolitan City).

E. Busan regional tax office conducted an on-site verification of the actual transaction value of transfer income tax on transfer No. 2, 2004. During the investigation, the plaintiff's husband BB acquired the land of this case from Z on July 2, 2003 to 00,000,000 won (Evidence No. 5). The plaintiff submitted a written confirmation that "The plaintiff acquired the land of this case from ZZ on July 2, 2003." On September 18, 2004, 100, 2000, 300,000,000 won from ZZ on July 2, 200, 200, 200, 300,000 won from ZZ, 30,000 won from ZZ, 200,000 won of intermediate payment, and 30,000,000 won of intermediate payment of this case on July 2, 2003.

F. On September 21, 2004, the Defendant: (a) on the basis of the foregoing findings, on September 21, 2004, on the basis of the transfer value under the transfer transfer transfer value of KRW 00,000,000; (b) on the basis of the acquisition value of KRW 00,000,000; (c) on the basis of the business type/type in which the trade name is situated; (d) on January 5, 2083, 146-10 real estate/building-lease 146-10, Seopo-gu, Seopo-gu, Seopo-dong, 1983; (b) on March 10, 205, on the basis of the foregoing, on the basis of the Plaintiff’s disposal of the transfer value of KRW 20,00,00,00; (c) on the basis of the Plaintiff’s disposal of the acquisition value of KRW 00,000,00,00.

G. Since then, on November 15, 2013, V sold the instant land to AAB Telecom Co., Ltd. with the price of KRW 000,000,000,000, and reported the acquisition value as KRW 000,000 (transfer value due to transfer No. 2), and reported the transfer value as KRW 00,000,00 in accordance with the actual conditions.

H. The Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to submit explanatory materials on the actual transaction amount. The Plaintiff’s husband and wife failed to submit any particular explanatory materials on the ground that “10,000 won applied with the transfer value pursuant to the transfer transfer at the time of the previous disposition and the actual transfer value of KRW 00,000,000,000, which is the difference between the transfer value pursuant to the transfer value pursuant to the transfer value and the actual transfer value of KRW 200,000,000, the Plaintiff’s tax base was determined on May 13, 2014 and the Plaintiff’s tax base was determined on the basis of this, and then the Plaintiff issued a disposition re-issued and notified the transfer income tax for KRW 00,00,00 (including additional tax, and the already paid tax amount was deducted) for the year 2003.

(i) On August 4, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on August 4, 2014, but the decision of dismissal was made on December 15, 2014, and filed the instant lawsuit on March 13, 2015.

(j) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s husband BB’s business records are as follows.

SS FFFRa 601

OOO-O, O real estate/trade continue on January 25, 2007

OO-O real estate/store on June 17, 2008, 2009.

Busan 00 Gu 220-4

FFFRa 106 No. 106

Real Estate/Sale on June 10, 2014

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, Eul evidence 1 to 6

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s transfer value according to the second transfer between the Plaintiff and V is 00,000,000 won. However, the Plaintiff’s acquisition value due to the first transfer between the Plaintiff and the Z is 000,000,000 won, not the transfer value paid to the Z but the actual 00,000,000 won (=0,000,0000 + the brokerage fee paid to the real estate intermediary). Therefore, the tax base due to the second transfer by the Plaintiff should be calculated by using the transfer value as 00,000,000,000 won, and the acquisition value as 0,000,000,000,000 won, which is more than the transfer value. As such, the Plaintiff’s transfer value pursuant to the second transfer should be calculated as 00,000,000 won, the transfer income tax should be calculated as 00,000,0000 won, which is more.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as shown in attached Table 2.

C. Determination

1) In calculating the transfer income tax according to the Plaintiff’s second transfer, there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the fact that the transfer value is 00,000,000 won for the third intermediate payment paid by the Plaintiff to Busan Metropolitan City and the necessary expenses to be deducted from the above transfer value. Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the remainder of necessary expenses to be deducted from the above transfer value exceeds the transfer value of KRW 000,000,000 premised on the instant disposition (=00,000 - above 00,000,000,000), namely, whether the Plaintiff’s transfer amount and real estate intermediary fees paid to the transferor according to the first transfer are 00,000,000 won as alleged by the Plaintiff.

2) As to this point, on May 21, 2003, the Plaintiff asserted that on July 21, 2003, the Plaintiff paid KRW 00,000,000,000, in cash withdrawn from the same account on July 2, 2003, and KRW 00,000,000, in total, out of KRW 00,000,000,000, as the acquisition price by transfer pursuant to the first transfer, and that the Plaintiff paid KRW 00,00,000,000 to real estate intermediaries as the brokerage commission.

However, on July 2, 2003, the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the purchaser under the land supply contract of this case and only 18 days from the date of succession to the status of the purchaser on August 2003, 2003, and received KRW 000,000,000 from the price for succession to the status of the purchaser. In accordance with each of the evidence Nos. 4, 9, and evidence No. 10-1, the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband’s account of BB was withdrawn from May 21, 2003, and the status of the purchaser under the land supply contract of this case was collected from the same account of July 2, 2003 to the Plaintiff from the same account of KRW 0,000,000 and KRW 000,000,000, and KRW 300,000,00 respectively.

Busan City 00 Gu 00 ss name

☆ GGG 4101-13번지

Won 0,000,000 x 159 square meters (525 square meters x 0.3025)

Contract: 000

7/2: 00,000,000

Uniforms expenses of 10 million won

Won 00,000,000

Installment payments

≒ 0억 (7/2 (수))

The fact that the following phrases (Evidence A 10 No. 10-1) are written on the page corresponding to the page from June 30, 2003 to July 2, 2003 is recognized:

However, in full view of the following circumstances recognized earlier or by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid the Z as the transfer price of KRW 000,000,000, total amount of KRW 000,000 to the real estate broker, and KRW 00,000,000,000 to the real estate broker according to the transfer of title 1, even if the witness Z or oral testimony was presented, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① There is no evidence to acknowledge that the contract between the Plaintiff and the Z contains a transfer value of KRW 00,000,000 between the transfer value and the transfer value, and there is no evidence that the Plaintiff submitted the same contract to the tax authority or this court.

② The Plaintiff asserted that KRW 00,000,000 of the check withdrawn on May 21, 2003 from her husband BB’s account and KRW 000,000,000 of the check withdrawn on July 2, 2003, and KRW 000,000,000 of the total amount of KRW 00,000,000,000 of the check, which was deposited on July 2, 2003, were used as real estate intermediary fees. However, the Plaintiff and ZB did not have any objective evidence to deem that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and ZB on determining the transfer price of KRW 00,00,000 of the transfer price under the transfer as 0,00,000, which was withdrawn from the account of BB’s account, and there was no objective evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff actually paid Z and the real estate intermediary.

③ The Plaintiff’s husband BB submitted a written confirmation that “The Plaintiff acquired the instant land from the Z on July 2, 2003, in the course of the on-site investigation of the actual transaction price of Busan Regional Tax Office in 2004, KRW 200,000,000,” and the Plaintiff also stated to the same effect in the process of the said investigation.

④ At the time of transfer 1 and 2, BB was a business proprietor engaged in the real estate sale and lease business, healthcare business, etc. Furthermore, the possibility that BB could withdraw all or some of the above 00,000,000 won to use for its own business fund cannot be ruled out. In the instant case where there is no objective evidence that the above 00,000,000 won was actually paid to ZZ and real estate intermediaries, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff used the said money as the acquisition price following the transfer and the real estate intermediary fee solely on the ground that BB’s account was withdrawn from the ZZ and real estate intermediary. Moreover, it is doubtful whether the Plaintiff’s payment was made for the same purpose as the ZZ and some of the above 00,000,000 won out of the money withdrawn from BB’s account and the Plaintiff’s payment was made for the same purpose as the ZZ’s land supply contract, and whether the remaining amount was made for the same 200,700,2000.

⑤ During the 2003 Family Register that is estimated to be created by the Plaintiff as seen earlier.

Although the phrase (No. 10-1) appears to correspond to the Plaintiff’s assertion as seen above is written on the page from June 30, 2003 to July 2, 2003, there is no objective evidence to verify who is, when, and how circumstances the above phrase were written. Furthermore, the Plaintiff appears to have claimed that KRW 00,000,000, which was withdrawn from the account of BB on May 21, 2003, was paid to ZZ as the down payment pursuant to the first transfer, but the Plaintiff did not submit any supporting document from May 19, 200 to May 21, 2003, and it appears that there was no doubt that the Plaintiff paid the remainder of the above household at the stage of paying the remainder of KRW 00,000,00,000,000 which appears to be favorable to himself.

⑥ The Plaintiff filed a false declaration of acquisition value and transfer value at the time of filing a return of transfer income tax on October 13, 2003 on the transfer income tax pursuant to the second transfer on October 13, 2003, and made a false statement of transfer value in the course of the on-site verification by the Busan Regional Tax Office in 2004. In addition, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 00,000,000 from the account of BB’s account at the request for examination by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service (i.e., the down payment + KRW 00,000,000 + the remainder of KRW 00,000) from the check to the ZZ, and paid KRW 0,000,000 in cash.”

In the instant case, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the transfer value was reduced or increased from the first declaration to the instant case in 2003, and that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the transfer value was changed in the form of increase of the acquisition value was not consistent, but it is difficult to believe that it was not consistent in itself.

3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid KRW 00,000,000 as the transfer price to the Z as well as KRW 00,000 as the brokerage fee to the real estate intermediary, is without merit, without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.