early 208 Heavy277 ( October 08, 2008)

Where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition by books or other documentary evidence, the estimated investigation shall be determined.

Where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition of the relevant asset due to the absence of books, sales contract, receipts, or other documentary evidence necessary to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition, the estimated investigation shall be determined by the conversion price, etc.

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

Article 89 (Income Subject to Non-Taxation Transfer)

Article 94 (Scope of Transfer Income Tax)

1. The plaintiffs shall be dismissed from filing their claims.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 33,804,70 on May 1, 2008 and KRW 3,380,470 on each of the Plaintiffs on each of May 1, 2002 shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On September 21, 200, Kimok obtained a building permit to construct a multi-family house on the ground of ○○○-dong ○○○○-dong 992-9 large 196 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the construction of the said house (hereinafter “instant house”), and leased part of the said house without obtaining approval for use.

B. On March 19, 2001, the Plaintiffs acquired the instant land and housing from Kim Jong-ok with a share of 1/2, respectively, and completed a report on the change of the owner on March 27, 2001, and obtained approval for the use of the instant housing on May 21, 2001.

C. On June 20, 2002, the Plaintiffs transferred the instant land and housing to Ansan, and June 2002

24. Based on the standard market price, the transfer value of the instant land and housing was calculated as KRW 144,149,640, and the acquisition value was calculated as KRW 140,846,00, respectively, and the transfer income amount was calculated as KRW 921,740, and then the preliminary return of the transfer income tax was made.

D. On November 2007, the Defendant notified by the director of the Namcheon District Tax Office that the transfer value of the instant land and building constitutes a high-class house as a sum of 656,50,000 won. The Defendant calculated the transfer value of the instant land and building based on the actual transaction value as to the acquisition value respectively 328,250,000 won, respectively. On the other hand, on the ground that the Plaintiffs failed to submit sales contract, receipts, and other documentary evidence necessary to verify the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition, they calculated the conversion value as KRW 240,469,860, based on the estimation of the conversion value as KRW 83,614,760, respectively, and calculated the transfer value as KRW 83,804,70, May 1, 2008, the Defendant imposed the tax amount as KRW 380,380,470 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above dispositions imposed upon the Plaintiffs”).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 and 2-3 through 11, Evidence Nos. 2 and 3-2, Evidence Nos. 4-2, Evidence Nos. 9-2, Evidence Nos. 13-2 and 3, Evidence Nos. 2 and 3, Evidence Nos. 13-3, Evidence Nos. 13-2 and 3, Evidence Nos. 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legitimate

According to relevant materials, such as the factual confirmation of the employees of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Office who arranged the sale and purchase of the instant land and buildings, even if the Plaintiffs were to have acquired the instant land and buildings in KRW 578,00,000,00, the Defendant deemed that there is no account book or other documentary evidence and determined the acquisition value as the conversion price without considering the fact that the acquisition value cannot be confirmed, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 89 (Income Subject to Non-Taxation Transfer)

Article 94 (Scope of Transfer Income Tax)

C. Determination

According to the provisions of Article 97 (1) 1 (a) and (c) and Article 114 (5) of the Income Tax Act and Articles 143 (1) 1 and 176-2 (1) 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17751 of Oct. 1, 2002), where there are omissions or errors in the details of return filed by a person who has made a preliminary return of tax base of transfer income, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall correct the tax base of transfer income and the tax amount. In this case, when the assets fall under the standard of high-class house under Article 96 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act, the transfer value and the acquisition value of the transfer income tax shall be based on the actual transaction value, but if the actual transaction value falls under the case of calculating the actual transaction value at the time of transfer or acquisition, the actual transaction value at the time of estimation or correction shall be confirmed by the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition.

Therefore, as to whether it is legitimate to determine the acquisition value of the land and building of this case as a method of estimated investigation, the plaintiff does not submit a sales contract and receipt related to the sale and purchase of the land and building of this case. In addition, the plaintiff's statement of the fact that the plaintiff submitted (Evidence No. 12 of this case), the statement of self-reliance deposit transaction (Evidence No. 13 of this case), the certificate of deposit without passbook transfer (Evidence No. 14 of this case), each transaction document (Evidence No. 16 and 17 of this case) and witness's statement, and the witness's statement order in the order of 16,00,000 won, the acquisition value of the land and building of this case cannot be considered as a basis for the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition. Thus, since there is no other basis for such determination, it constitutes a case where the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of the land and building of this case cannot be confirmed by a long or other documentary evidence. Therefore, since the defendant's liability to pay the resident tax of this case cannot be considered separately.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.