Early High Court Decision 201J 1598 ( November 23, 2011)

There is no evidence to prove that real estate has been acquired as the sales price claimed.

In civil litigation, it is difficult to recognize that the acquisition value determined by the tax authority is the real purchase price and the fact-finding was made by submitting a sales contract with the same content as the actual purchase price as evidence, and the sales contract for the value claimed is additionally submitted, but the date of preparation is omitted.

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act

2012Guhap718 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX

Head of the High Tax Office

July 10, 2012

September 4, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on January 6, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 20, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired from the Nonparty’s Republic of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building of 000-2 large 856 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and transferred it to the Nonparty Co., Ltd. on September 6, 2007. On November 30, 2007, the Plaintiff voluntarily paid KRW 000,000, when filing a preliminary return for tax base of transfer income, with the Defendant’s transfer value of KRW 00 and acquisition value of KRW 00,000.

B. On January 6, 2011, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation and confirmed that the real acquisition value of the instant real estate was KRW 000,000, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the rectification of KRW 000,000 for transfer income tax reverted to the year 2007.

C. After that, the Defendant added necessary expenses of KRW 000 on April 8, 201, thereby correcting the said tax amount to KRW 000 by reducing the said tax amount (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” in the disposition imposing capital gains tax on January 6, 201).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 (including natural disaster No. 1), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate in accord and satisfaction of the claim amounting to KRW 000,000 against the No.A. As such, the acquisition value of the instant real estate ought to be deemed to be KRW 000. Therefore, the instant disposition that took place under the premise that the acquisition value of the instant real estate is KRW 00

B. Determination

The key issue of the instant case is whether the actual transaction price required for the acquisition of the instant real estate is KRW 000, as alleged by the Plaintiff, or KRW 000, as alleged by the Defendant.

In light of the following circumstances, Gap's evidence Nos. 3 and 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 11 through 14, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation filed a lawsuit including indemnity against the plaintiff on July 14, 2003, the plaintiff at the time submitted as evidence the same sales contract (Evidence No. 4) with the same purport, and the appellate court of the above case (Seoul High Court 2004Na2473, May 13, 2005) found that the facts were established for the same purpose (the above case was dismissed for a trial by the appellate court on May 13, 2005). ② The real estate of this case was appraised as KRW 30 on Jan. 15, 200 and No. 130 on Nov. 14, 2003, the plaintiff and No. 30 on Nov. 31, 200 on each of the above real estate purchased No.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which considered the acquisition value of the real estate of this case as KRW 000, is legitimate, and the other 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.