The propriety of the disposition corrected based on the price confirmed by the purchaser

Since the transfer value verified by the buyer corresponds to the market price at the time, the disposition that corrected the transfer value by the transferor is legitimate.

Article 100 of the Income Tax Act (Calculation of Gains on Transfer)

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 31,210,510 on October 11, 2005 (the “statement of the purport of the claim” hereinafter referred to as October 17, 2005) against the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 1, 2004, the Plaintiff, from ○ Construction Co.,, Ltd., ○○○○○○○○○○○, etc., sold 68,70,000 won in the purchase price of 687,00,000 (including value-added tax) and paid 68,70,000 won in the purchase price of ○○ apartment located at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc., and transferred the right to sell the above apartment on April 2, 2004 to ○○○○. On June 9, 2004, the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer income tax for 168,700,000 won in the transfer price of 168,700,000 won in the transfer price of 168,700,000 won in the transfer price of 68,700,000 won in the acquisition price,700,004 won in the transfer income tax for 204.

B. As a result of the tax investigation conducted around June 2005 with respect to Kim ○, a regional tax office notified the Defendant of the data on the ground that the premium for the instant sales right was KRW 15,700,000, not KRW 155,000,000, but the actual transfer value was KRW 223,700,000. Based on the above taxation data, the Defendant, based on the above taxation data, deemed the gains on transfer of the sales right of this case as KRW 149,504,000 and notified the Plaintiff of the payment of KRW 31,210,510,00 after deducting the amount of voluntary payment after correcting the transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff in 204 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on January 11, 2006. However, on July 25, 2006, the said request for examination was dismissed and served on July 31, 2006 on the Plaintiff.

Each entry of evidence A, Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff transferred the sales right of this case to 168,70,000 won including the premium of 168,70,000,000 won to ○○○, an intermediary, and then received 168,70,000 won through ○○○. If Kim○○ acquired the sales right of this case by transfer of 223,70,000 won, then this disposition of this case is unlawful, since it is evident that Lee○, an intermediary, belongs to the plaintiff and Kim○○ in the middle and took over the sales right of this case to 223,70,000 won (=23,700,000 - 168,70,000 won). Thus, the disposition of this case, which was made by the broker, was unlawful.

B. Determination

The above evidence and evidence No. 2, and evidence No. 2, and the testimony of the witness Kim ○, together with the overall purport of the pleadings, are as follows: ① The purchaser Kim ○, from the above tax investigation to the above court, 15,700,000 won for the sales price of the instant sales right (including KRW 223,70,000). At the seller’s request, the sales price was 168,700,000 won for the sales price as 168,700 won for the sales price at the seller’s request, and upon the commencement of the above tax investigation, the plaintiff made a sales contract (Evidence No. 2) with the sales price of KRW 15,000 for the above 15,00,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 200 won for the above sales contract, and it is consistent that the plaintiff demanded the broker to pay it to the broker 00,000 won for the above 200 won for the above sales contract.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the transfer value of the instant sales right is KRW 168,700,000 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.