Methods of calculating gains on transfer when transferring real estate within one year after acquisition;

In case where a real estate is acquired and transferred within one year, the transfer value and acquisition value shall not be based on the standard market price, but on the actual transaction price.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

I did not prepare the summary of the decision.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The acquisition tax amount of No. 1 (Tax Notice), No. 4, No. 8-2, No. 3-2, No. 3-4, and No. 7 (No. 7-2 and No. 8-2 are the same as those of No. 3-2 and No. 8-4) calculated on the basis of No. 1, No. 7-1, No. 7-1, No. 8-2, No. 4, and No. 7-1, No. 7-2, and No. 9-3, No. 7-1, No. 7-2, and No. 9-3, No. 7-1, No. 7-2, and No. 9-4, No.

2. The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate in accordance with the above taxation grounds and related Acts and subordinate statutes. On the other hand, the plaintiff, in principle, should be calculated based on the transfer value and acquisition value based on the standard market price, and as an exception, in order to be calculated based on the actual transaction price by applying the above provisions of the National Tax Service Directive, it is necessary that the transaction is for speculation. The plaintiff's acquisition and transfer of the land of this case is calculated based on the actual transaction price by applying the above provisions instead of the standard market price, regardless of whether it is for speculation purpose. The disposition of this case is unlawful. Second, even if the transfer margin is calculated based on the actual transaction price, the actual transfer value of the land of this case is 60,320,000 won, not 49,730,000 won, but 49,730,0000 won, and the necessary expenses paid with the introduction, etc., were deducted from the transfer marginal profit from the transfer of the land of this case, notwithstanding the absence of all necessary expenses.

3. According to Articles 23(4) and 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act, the transfer value and acquisition value, which form the basis for calculating gains on transfer of assets, shall be based on the standard market price in principle, but in such cases as determined by the Presidential Decree, they shall be based on the actual market price. According to Article 170(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, one of the actual transaction price is determined based on the actual transaction price, and where it is possible to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition in a transaction designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service as deemed necessary to restrain speculation of real estate over a certain scale as determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. According to Article 72(3)5 of the above National Tax Service’s instructions, the transfer of real estate within one year after acquiring it is one of the transactions designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service under Article 170(4)2 of the above Enforcement Decree, while Article 45(1)4 of the Income Tax Act, Article 94(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides for necessary expenses from the transfer gains.

Therefore, according to the above series of relevant laws and regulations as to the plaintiff's first argument, in a case where real estate is acquired and transferred within one year as seen in this case, it is apparent that the transfer value and acquisition value, which form the basis for calculating the gains on transfer of assets, are based on the actual transaction price instead of the standard market price, and Article 72 (3) 5 of the above National Tax Service's instructions apply without any need to determine whether the real estate transferor has the purpose of speculation (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3731 delivered on February 9, 190). Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless.

The second argument of the plaintiff is examined.

The transfer price of the land of this case is KRW 9,00,00 in 00 and KRW 3,000 in 0,000 in 0,000 and KRW 3,970,00 in 00 in 00 as shown in the separate sheet Nos. 2, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts as to 9,970,000 in 00 in 00. In full view of the evidence admitted above, the transfer price of the remaining land of this case is at least KRW 15,525,00 in 00 in 0,000 in 00 as indicated in the above list Nos. 2,825,00 in 0 in 0,000 in 00 in 0,0000 in 30,000 in 20,0000 in 10,0000 in 30,000 in 20,000 won in 10,000.

In addition, in the transfer of the instant land, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,500,000 to the non-party Shin Jae-sik et al. for the introduction of the title, and in the transfer of the above ○○○○, ○○○○, and ○○○○○, etc., introduced it, account for the gain of KRW 4,565,00 in the middle. Thus, there is no other evidence supporting the above assertion that the above amount should be deducted from the transfer value as necessary expenses, and there is no evidence supporting the above statement of KRW 10-1,2 (each receipt), and the evidence of KRW 9,565,00 (4,50,000 + 4,565,00) and the testimony of the above Chapter 10-1, 2 (each receipt) and 9-1, and the testimony of the above Chapter ○.

Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no illegality in calculating gains on transfer without deducting necessary expenses, such as the introduction cost of the plaintiff's principal, from the actual transfer value of the land of this case as KRW 60,320,000.

4. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation on the ground that the disposition of this case is unlawful is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the losing party.

April 25, 1990