Suwon District Court-2017-Gu Group-1216 ( November 18, 2016)

The purchase price of the instant land

The Plaintiff’s assertion alone cannot be deemed as 5.5 billion won in the purchase price of the instant land.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2016Nu7979 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Capital Gains Tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

January 10, 2018

January 24, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

The reasoning for this part of this Court is the same as the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The actual value of the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant land to Gangwon, etc. is KRW 50 million.

B. Determination

According to the overall purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 29, 32-37, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 5, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (a copy of real estate sales contract, the plaintiff denies the existence of the original and the establishment of the petition, but according to the testimony and the entire purport of the testimony and oral argument by the witness Park E-E and the last F, each of the original and the plaintiff's name can be presumed to be the authenticity of the document, and the authenticity of the document can be presumed to be established by the seal of the plaintiff), each of the testimony of the witness Park E-E and the last FF of the court of first instance, witness changeG, and SJ's testimony and oral argument by the court of first instance on May 4, 2004, the plaintiff transferred the land of this case to D and 12, D and 12,000,000 won to D and D through H and 12,000,000 won, KRW 7.4.5 billion,5 billion.

the receipt of all section of this title.

The respective statements in Gap evidence 3-1 through 11 (each real estate sales contract), Gap evidence 14-23, evidence 24-1, evidence 24-3, evidence 25-3, and evidence 4 are difficult to believe in light of the above facts of recognition, and each statement in Gap evidence 5, evidence 6-1, 2, evidence 6-1, 7-13, evidence 26 through 28, 30, and 31 are insufficient to reverse the fact that the purchase price of the land of this case is KRW 80 million.

Since the Plaintiff’s transfer price of the instant land is KRW 80 million, the instant disposition based on such premise is lawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.