Cho High Court Decision 201Na0451 (Law No. 25, 2011)

This disposition is legitimate as the actual transfer value confirmed at the time of the investigation.

At the time of investigation, the buyer made a statement to the effect that he acquired the same amount of land at the same time, and the complaint asserts that the same amount of transfer is the transfer value and the transfer value is different during the pleading process, which is difficult to accept.

2011Guhap4314 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

The AA

The Director of the National Tax Service

September 12, 2012

October 17, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on October 11, 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 2004, the Plaintiff purchased a total of 330,582 square meters (per 100,000 square meters) from Asan-si 00 OOri 00 square meters (per 16,000 square meters) from Asan-si, Asan-si, and 16-2 square meters (per 3.3 square meters) from Asan-si. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the sales contract with the owner of the above land was null and void, and filed a lawsuit against ABB and Song-si, etc. who did not transfer the above land ownership, and following the lawsuit, around January 2009, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 165,291 square meters (per 50,000 square meters and below 50,000 square meters) equivalent to the above real estate (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”).

B. As above, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land at KRW 000 (per KRW 50,000) and did not complete the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name, and transferred the instant land to LL enterprise (hereinafter “L enterprise”) on March 24, 2009, but did not report the transfer income tax thereon.

C. On the other hand, on November 23, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired the commercial buildings MMM set of 000 units and 6 rooms of 2,784m2 (hereinafter “instant building”) located in 000 won, and transferred the buildings to 000 won on August 10, 2009, and did not report the transfer income tax thereon.

D. On October 11, 2010, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to LL companies with KRW 000,000, and rendered an additional disposition of KRW 000,000,000 in total, following the transfer of the instant land to the Plaintiff and KRW 000,000,000,000,000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On January 10, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 10, 201, and dismissed on July 25, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] The whole purport of the arguments, and the facts of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1, 3, 4, and 10 (including natural disaster)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the transfer value of the instant land was KRW 000,000,000 for the instant land and the total amount of KRW 000 for the transfer value of the instant land for the instant land, which is separate from the transfer value of the instant land, was stated by mistake in the transfer value of the instant land, and in fact, the transfer value of the instant land is KRW 000,000, not for the instant land. The imposition of transfer income tax on the instant land is unlawful on the premise that the transfer value of the instant land is KRW 00,000.

(2) 원고가 2005. 11. 23. 이 사건 건물을 경매로 취득할 당시 주식회사 PP랜드는 이 사건 건물의 전 소유자인 주식회사 QQ에 대한 공사대금청구채권 000원을 근거로 유치권신고를 한 상태였고， 원고는 주식회사 PP랜드에 대하여 이 사건 건물의 시설물 인수비용으로 000원을 지급하였으므로， 위 000원은 필요경비로 양도가액에서 공제되어야 한다. 이러한 점을 간과한 이 사건 건물에 대한 양도소득세 부과처분은 위법하다.

B. Determination

(1) Whether imposition of capital gains tax on the instant land is lawful

The facts that the acquisition value of the land of this case was 00 won, and the transfer value of the land of this case was 165, 291 square meters, and 7, and 8, respectively, are considered as follows. On August 13, 2010, the plaintiff replied to the effect that the transfer value of the land of this case was 00 won and 00 won, and that the transfer value was 00 won and 00 won was 1 million won, and that the plaintiff stated that the transfer value of the land of this case was 00 won and 00 won was 1.65 square meters (50 square meters) at the time of filing a request for judgment with the Tax Tribunal, and that the transfer value of the land of this case was 00 won and 200 square meters at the time of filing a request for judgment with the Tax Tribunal, and that there was no possibility that the transfer value of the land of this case was 00 won and 200 million won at the time of filing a request for judgment with the Tax Tribunal.

(2) Whether imposition of capital gains tax on the instant building is lawful

The plaintiff asserts that 00 won should be deducted from the transfer value, since it paid 00 won to PPland, the reporter of the lien on the building of this case, and that the above 00 won should be deducted from the necessary expense. The plaintiff presented receipts, etc. as evidence to support the above assertion, but considering the whole purport of the pleading in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff was explained in the process before and after the disposition of this case that it was necessary to submit objective evidence, such as 'financial material for the payment of 00 won to the above 00 won' from the tax authorities, even though it was explained that it was necessary to submit such material in the process of the previous disposition of this case, the plaintiff was not able to do so at all. The above evidence No. 6 did not believe that it is difficult to do so, and there is no reason to view that the plaintiff paid 00 won to PPland, and that the plaintiff paid 00 won to the above 0th of the above 0th of the building or the above 0th of the building to the above 0th of this case.

3. Conclusion

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