Seoul Administrative Court 2013Gudan2528 ( October 20, 2014)

2012west 3353 ( October 30, 2012)

The retroactive appraisal value can be recognized as the market price if it is based on a reasonable assessment method.

Although the retroactive appraisal value, it can be recognized as the market price if the reliable appraisal institution is based on the reasonable appraisal method.

Article 163 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

2014Nu5856 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Park AA

O Head of tax office

National Flag

March 25, 2015

May 6, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 44,736,090 (including additional tax) against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2011 that exceeds KRW 20,480,530 (including additional tax) shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows: (a) the court of first instance has dismissed the following matters among the judgments of the court of first instance; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance, and thus, (c) Article 8 (2) of

○ 2 pages 9, “12.8.,” and “2010.,” respectively, shall be read as “12.1.,” and “2010.,” respectively.

2. Additional determination

The defendant asserts that the appraisal results of the first instance court cannot be deemed to reflect the adequate exchange values in light of the appropriateness of the appraisal precedents that the appraiser of the first instance court used as comparative precedents, the difference between the real estate as comparative precedents, the location of the house of this case, the point of time of new construction, and the transaction cases under subparagraph 301 of the building of this case.

As the result of the appraisal by the appraiser in the first instance trial, there is no ground to deem that the precedent of the appraiser in the first instance trial is particularly unfair, i.e., the following circumstances revealed by the result of the inquiry into the appraiser in the first instance trial and the purport of the entire pleadings. The appraiser in the first instance trial calculated the gap rate by taking into account the comparative precedents and the location and age of the house in this case as well as other conditions together. The new construction time of the house in this case may be December 27, 1997 and the old age may not be considered as special factors at the time of price assessment compared with the real estate in comparative precedents (as of May 21, 2003) as of December 27, 1997. The defendant presented the contents of the report of capital gains tax at the time of transfer on June 29, 200-20, the defendant's assertion that the real market price in this case would be KRW 75,000,000, 300,000.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.