Cho High-2016-Seoul Government-4185 (O5, 2017)

The Claimant must prove that the stamp contract prepared by the parties to the transaction and approved by the head of the Si/Gun, etc. is prepared differently from the actual contract.

Unless there are special circumstances, the stamp contract prepared by the parties to the transaction and approved by the head of the Si/Gun, etc. shall be presumed to have been prepared in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, and the claimant must prove that the contract was prepared differently from the actual

Article 97 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act

2017Guhap60673

OO

O Head of tax office

November 10, 2017

December 15, 2017

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 OO,OO, or OO(including additional OO, OO, or OO) for the plaintiff 20O years belonging to one of the 20Os is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired 20O.O.O. O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O., whose acquisition value of the instant real estate was KRW KRW KRW KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or more than the 2000,000,000 won.

B. As a result of the on-site investigation of the Plaintiff, the Defendant confirmed that the sales price of the instant real estate was KRW 00 million by the sales contract attached to the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax report, which is the former owner of the instant real estate, and by the confirmation of the fact of sale and purchase prepared by the Plaintiff, the sales price of the instant real estate was KRW 00 million, and the final price was KRW 00 million as a result of the verification of the actual acquisition price by the latter owners, on the ground that the acquisition price of the instant real estate was KRW 00 million, KRW 000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,00000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,00000,0000,0000 won (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on 20O.O.O.O., but dismissed 20O.O.O.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 13, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

In calculating the transfer income tax, the acquisition price of the real estate shall be based on the actual transaction price and shall be based on the conversion price if the Plaintiff is unaware of the actual transaction price. However, even though the sales contract for the real estate of this case was lost, the officially assessed individual land price and the standard market price at the time of the purchase of the real estate of this case was a total of O0 million won at the time of the purchase of the real estate of this case, and the standard market price of the real estate of this case in 2000,000 won was a total of O00,0000 won, and the real estate of this case was a total of O0,000,000 won, which was reported by the Plaintiff at the time of the acquisition of the real estate of this case. On the other hand, the disposition of this case is unlawful because the annual rent of this case was more than O0,000 won, which is the transfer price of the real estate of this case reported by the former owner.

B. Determination

1) Article 97(1)1 (a) and (b) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12169, Jan. 1, 2014) provides that the acquisition value to be deducted from the transfer value when calculating gains on transfer of residents shall be the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of assets, and where it is impossible to confirm it, it shall be based on the transaction example, appraisal value, or conversion value prescribed by Presidential Decree. Furthermore, barring any special circumstance, the stamp contract prepared by the parties to the transaction and approved by the head of the Si/Gun, etc. shall be presumed to have been prepared in accordance with the transaction contract between the parties, and the assertion that the contract was prepared differently from the actual transaction value (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2353, Apr. 9, 193).

2) However, according to the aforementioned facts, Gap's evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 13, and Eul's evidence Nos. 2 through 6 and the overall purport of the pleadings, there exists a real estate sales contract and a certificate of sales contract with the purport that the plaintiff purchases the real estate of this case from 1900,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

3) On the other hand, the Plaintiff did not submit a sales contract, claiming that he lost the sales contract of the instant real estate, which is the actual transaction price claimed by the Plaintiff, with the amount of KRW 00 million as the sales price. In addition, as seen in each description of the evidence Nos. 8 through 12 and 14 (including various numbers), the above O0 million amount is lower than the standard market price at the time of acquiring the instant real estate or the appraised value at the time of transfer, or the Plaintiff obtained annual rent of KRW 00,000 through the lease of the instant real estate, on the sole basis that the said O0,000 won was lower than the appraised value at the time of acquiring the instant real estate, or that there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. Conclusion

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