If there are circumstances to deem that the price of assets has been paid almost by social norms, the acquisition or transfer of the assets can be deemed to have been made.

The acquisition or transfer of the assets concerned can be deemed to have been made in case where there are circumstances to deem that the price of the assets concerned was almost paid in light of social norms, as well as cases where the price of the assets concerned is paid in full as the price of the assets concerned is paid in full regardless of registration or enrollment.

Article 88 (Definition of Transfer) of Income Tax Act

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 228,957,490 against the Plaintiff on July 14, 2006 exceeds KRW 73,697,555 of capital gains tax shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 12, 2003, 000, ○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. sold 640,258,000 won of the sale price to ○○○○○ apartment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On May 29, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired the right to sell the apartment of this case from ○○○○ on the purchase price of KRW 720,258,00 [the outstanding balance of KRW 640,258,00 (the debt acquisition amount of KRW 63,122,860) + the premium of KRW 80,000 + the approval for use of the apartment building on July 1, 2004, and the registration for ownership transfer can be granted on August 4, 2004 when the ownership is registered in full due to the payment of KRW 61,598,346 among the outstanding balance on August 10, 204, the Plaintiff transferred the apartment of this case to ○○○○○○○○○○○ on the condition that it is possible to transfer the ownership in full.

C. The Plaintiff: (a) deemed that the transfer of the instant apartment to ○○○ was the transfer of the sales right; (b) calculated the transfer value as KRW 1,020,258,000 by reducing the transfer value; and (c) calculated the tax base as KRW 300,000 by applying the tax rate of KRW 297,50,000; and (b) calculated the tax amount as KRW 107,100,000 by applying the transfer income tax rate of KRW 40% on the sales right; and (c) accordingly, voluntarily paid the said tax amount on December 31, 2004.

D. The defendant confirmed that the actual transfer value of the apartment of this case was KRW 1,170,258,00, and that the plaintiff intentionally transferred the apartment of this case without paying only KRW 1,524,514 out of the remainder of the sale price in order to avoid capital gains tax, etc. In light of the fact that it constitutes a transfer of unregistered assets under Article 104(3) of the Income Tax Act, the defendant calculated the capital gains tax base of KRW 450,00,000 according to the actual transfer value and applied the tax rate of KRW 449,857,666, 70 on July 14, 2006 by applying the tax rate of KRW 228,957,490 to the plaintiff (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

E. Accordingly, on October 16, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a request with the National Tax Tribunal for a national tax trial, but was dismissed on April 9, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 5, 14 (including each number), Eul evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the fact that the period of filing a claim for registration of ownership transfer (60 days from the date of completion of registration of ownership transfer) under a contract for the sale and supply of multi-unit housing (60 days from the date of completion of registration of ownership transfer) is not excessive and the remainder is not paid, the registration of ownership transfer cannot be filed, and the registration of ownership transfer is completed with the approval of the executor and the Si construction, and the right to sell the apartment of this case is legally transferred under the ownership. Considering the fact that the ownership has not been acquired, the transfer income tax has been completed after completing the change of name on the ledger of the buyer, voluntary report and payment has been made, and that the right to sell the apartment of this case has been transferred due to the Plaintiff’s difficult circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the disposition of

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 88 (1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that "transfer" means that an asset is actually transferred for price due to sale, exchange, investment in kind in a corporation, etc., regardless of its registration or enrollment. In light of the purport of the above provision, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have acquired or transferred the relevant asset in cases where not only the payment of the price for the relevant asset is made in full regardless of its registration or enrollment, but also the payment of the price for most of the price for the relevant asset remains in full, and there are circumstances where it is deemed that the price for the relevant asset remains in full, and there is almost little amount of the price for the relevant asset has been paid in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu8934, Apr. 27, 1993).

(2) However, the purport that the transfer income tax on unregistered transferred assets is excessive is that a person who acquired such assets transfers such assets without registering its acquisition at the time of transfer, thereby suppressing or preventing the speculation of real estate subject to transfer without paying transfer marginal profit, etc. Therefore, in the acquisition of such assets first, it is recognized that there is no speculative purpose such as tax avoidance or resale through the transfer of assets, and that it would be harsh to enforce the transfer of such assets to the transferor without registering its acquisition at the time of transfer. In other words, it is recognized that the Plaintiff did not complete the registration of transfer of such assets at the time of transfer, and that the Plaintiff did not complete the registration of transfer of such assets at the time of transfer of such assets at the time of transfer, and that the remaining amount of transfer of such apartment assets should be excluded from the unregistered transfer of such assets at the time of transfer of such assets (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du9494, Oct. 28, 2005).

(3) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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