Review Transfer 2009-0027 (2009.06.09)

Actual transaction price at acquisition of land

According to all evidence, it is reasonable to view that the actual transaction price at the time of land acquisition is the value claimed by the plaintiff.

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

쇠鹬 쇠지鹬 3000 쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지 3000

1. The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 239,722,740 on November 1, 2008 against the Plaintiff as of November 1, 2008 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지지 3000

1. Details of the disposition;

A. "CC, 240-4, 148 m2, and 3 lots (hereinafter referred to as "No. 1 land"), located in the name of thisA with respect to the attached list No. 1, the name of HongB with respect to the D. D. D. D. D. D. D. D. D. D. D. D. D. D. 240-17 m2, and three lots (hereinafter referred to as "No. 2"), other than 11m2, in the attached list No. 3, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of HongB with respect to the P. D. D. D. D. 240-6 m2, and 141m2 (hereinafter referred to as "third land") under the attached list No. 3. 1, Sep. 29, 1989; the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the portion of 1/4 of the land under the name of this A on September 19, 1989.

In addition, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on August 25, 1998 with respect to each 2/4 share in the name of Kim H in the land Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of August 29, 198.

C. On October 31, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred 3/4 shares in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant land”) among the land Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (excluding a total of 464 square meters divided as shown in the separate sheet) to J General Construction Co., Ltd. in the amount of KRW 1,350,000,000.

D. After that, on December 29, 2006, the Plaintiff made a preliminary return and payment of KRW 78,872,860 as transfer income tax for the year 2006 on the basis that the transfer value of the instant land is KRW 1.35 billion, acquisition value of KRW 953,267,372 as actual transaction value.

E. However, the Defendant calculated the transfer margin of KRW 281,263,724 converted by the standard market price on the ground that the actual transaction price at the time of the acquisition of the instant land is unclear, and thereafter issued the instant disposition to correct and notify the Plaintiff as of November 1, 2008, the transfer income tax of KRW 239,722,740 for the year 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 13, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 15-1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff acquired 3/4 shares of each of the lands Nos. 1, 2, and 3 from Kim HH in total 99.7 million won, the Defendant’s disposition that deemed otherwise unclear is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) While Kim H purchased each of the lands Nos. 1, 2, and 3 from EA, RedB, and HighG, Kim H transferred some of them to the Plaintiff and EP, etc., the following:

O The Plaintiff purchased 1/4 of the land of September 17, 1989 from Kim H to KRW 218 million. At the time of the sales contract, the Plaintiff and Kim H, Lee H, LeeP, and Lee R attended a sales contract (Evidence A 14) with the Plaintiff at the time of the sales contract, and the seller stated in the above sales contract that the seller shall be fully responsible for the registration of ownership transfer and shall compensate for any error.

O The Plaintiff purchased 1/4 of the land of December 30, 1989 from Kim H to 52.5 million won. At the time of the sales contract, the Plaintiff, Kim H and Lee PP attended the Plaintiff, Kim H and Lee PP to prepare a sales contract (Evidence A6). The above sales contract states that “the seller shall be responsible for and manage the registration of ownership transfer on December 30, 1989 and shall be responsible for it.”

O The Plaintiff purchased 1/4 of the land on March 9, 1990 from Kim H to 31.5 million won. At the time of the sales contract, the Plaintiff, Kim H, and Lee PP attended the Plaintiff, Kim H, and Lee PP to prepare a sales contract (Evidence A No. 18), and the said sales contract states that “the seller shall be fully responsible for the registration of transfer of ownership.”

(2) In addition, on August 25, 1998, the Plaintiff purchased 2/4 shares in each of the 2/4 shares in the name of Kim H from among the lands Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as of August 25, 1998. At the time of the sales contract, the Plaintiff and Kim H and Lee PP attended and completed a sales contract (Evidence No. 20 of the above sales contract). The Plaintiff paid 25 million won after deducting 45 million won that was lent to Kim H from the above 695 billion won.

(3) On March 29, 2004, Kim H prepared a written confirmation of the fact of each transaction of real estate (No. 15-1, No. 17-1, No. 19-1, and No. 21-1) with the content of confirming each transaction of real estate to the Plaintiff on March 29, 2004, and issued it with the certificate of his personal seal impression attached.

(4) However, Kim H filed a complaint that the Plaintiff and Lee PP had forged and exercised each of the above sales contracts (Evidence A No. 14, 16, 18, and 20). However, the prosecutor of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office (Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office), on November 20, 2008, issued a non-suspect disposition against the Plaintiff and Lee PP.

[Based on the recognition, Gap evidence 15-1, 2, Gap evidence 16-1, 17-2, Gap evidence 18-1, 18-2, Gap evidence 19-2, Gap evidence 20, Gap evidence 21-1, 2, Gap evidence 22 through 34, Gap evidence 47, Gap evidence 48-1, 2, Gap evidence 49-1, Gap evidence 50-1, 2, 3, 51-1, 52-1, 53-2, Gap evidence 53-1, 2, Gap evidence 56, 57, Gap evidence 59-1, Gap evidence 71, 74-1, Gap evidence 4, 14-1, and 4-6, Gap evidence 1, 52-1, 53-2, Gap evidence 57, Gap evidence 59-1, Gap evidence 71, 74-1, evidence 4, and evidence 16-1.

C. Determination

According to the above facts, the plaintiff acquired 3/4 shares in each of the lands of 1, 2, and 3 from Kim H (200 million won + 52.5 million won + 61.5 million won + 69.5 million won). Contrary to the above facts, the plaintiff's statement of 3-2 in the above facts of recognition and evidence No. 73-1 through 8 is likely to believe in light of each of the above facts of recognition and evidence No. 73-8, and there is no counter-proof.

Therefore, since the actual transaction price at the time of the acquisition of the instant land is equivalent to KRW 953,267,372, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful on a different premise, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.