2013west 2837 ( November 15, 2013)

It is reasonable to view that the heir’s share in land is acquired on the ground of the renunciation of inheritance, and the appraised value under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is the acquisition value.

In full view of the fact that part of the share in the issue land is purchased from other inheritors, and that there is no evidence to prove it, it is difficult to accept the claim that the claimant's acquisition value should be converted into the value of conversion.

2013Gudan25408 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

March 26, 2014

April 30, 2014

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

In the first place, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 166,508,893 on the Plaintiff on June 1, 2013.

A. Preliminaryly, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on June 1, 2013.

The part exceeding 74,305,163 won shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 29, 1984, the Plaintiff succeeded to the area of 22,542m2,542m2 (hereinafter “the instant real property”) from the deceased KimGG in South-gu, the Nam-gu, the Nam-gu, the Chungcheongnam-gu, the Chungcheongnampo-si, the Chungcheongnampo-si, the Chungcheongnampo-si, the Chungcheongnampo-si, the Chungcheongnampo-si, the 104m2m2 (hereinafter “the instant real property”).

B. On May 16, 1994, the Plaintiff and the Nonparty’s inheritors completed the registration of ownership transfer in the names of the Plaintiff and Nonparty’s inheritors on the grounds of their respective inheritance shares among the instant real estate (CA, GimB, 6/29, KimCC, KimD, KimF, and Plaintiff 4/29, KimE 1/29, respectively).

C. As to each inheritance share of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff on the same day

On May 16, 1994, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff was completed due to the renunciation of shares in the name of the plaintiff.

D. On February 7, 2011, the Plaintiff divided and transferred 21,882 square meters of the instant real estate.

E. The Plaintiff acquired shares in 25/29 of the instant real estate from Nonparty’s heir for compensation, but on the premise that the acquisition value cannot be confirmed, the Plaintiff calculated the acquisition value of the instant real estate as KRW 404,278,749, and reported and paid KRW 44,159,210 of the transfer income tax on the premise that the Plaintiff did not acquire the instant shares from Nonparty’s heir without compensation. However, the Defendant calculated the acquisition value of the said real estate as KRW 46,529,729 on the ground that the Plaintiff was deemed to have acquired the instant shares from Nonparty’s heir, and then notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of KRW 166,508,893 of the transfer income tax on June 1, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 5, Eul 1, 4

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition shall be revoked on the grounds as follows.

In the center of ○, the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares by paying the price to the Nonparty’s heir, but it is not possible to verify the amount paid at present. Therefore, the converted value under Article 114(7) of the Income Tax Act and Article 176-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act should be considered as

○ Preliminary. On May 16, 1994, the Plaintiff’s real estate between Nonparty’s heir and Nonparty’s heir.

As a result, the Plaintiff acquired the instant share from the deceased KimG, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have succeeded to the instant share from the deceased KimG, and the acquisition value thereof should be calculated.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares with compensation

According to Gap evidence No. 3, the plaintiff and the non-party heir may recognize the fact that they selected the method of "the renunciation of co-owner's share" among various transaction forms that can be selected to achieve the economic purpose of the transfer of share in this case. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff acquired the share in this case free of charge from the non-party heir unless it is proved that the plaintiff acquired the share in this case without compensation from the non-party heir in consideration of the difficulty of proof or equity between the parties in the case of necessary expenses under the Income Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du16137, Oct. 26, 2007).

Accordingly, the plaintiff asserted that he paid the price for the transfer of shares to the non-party inheritor.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize only the statement of Eul evidence No. 3 and the testimony of KimF by the witness KimF, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff succeeded to the instant shares

It is that the registration of the renunciation of equity by the inheritor was made on the same day as the inheritance registration.

In fact, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff and the Nonparty’s heir agreed on the division of the inherited property regarding the instant real estate, and there is no evidence to prove that there was an agreement on division of the inherited property.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed for all reasons.