The disposition that calculates the amount converted into the standard market price due to the failure to verify the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition is legitimate.

Since it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of the acquisition of real estate under the Income Tax Act, the ratio of the standard market price at the time of the transfer of real estate pursuant to the Income Tax Act, and then the conversion price at the time of the transfer is calculated and taxed by calculating the actual transaction price at the time of the acquisition according to the above ratio.

2012 Gohap 517561 Undue gains

KimA

Korea

August 14, 2012

August 28, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won and 20% interest per annum to the day of complete payment from the day after the delivery date of the written amendment on May 23, 2012 by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 15, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased the Seocho-gu Seoul OOdong No. 000 and 000 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future at that time, and the said real estate was sold to the Seoul Central District Court KRW 00 on January 3, 2008 during the voluntary auction procedure initiated by the Seoul Central District Court No. 2007ta and 17230.

B. On April 1, 2010, in order to determine the acquisition value for calculating the gains from the transfer of the instant real estate, the Defendant-affiliated tax office requested the Seocho-gu Office to submit related documents, such as a copy of the approval seal contract and the certificate of completion of real estate trade report at the time of acquiring each of the instant real estate, but failed to receive the response, and during that process, requested the Plaintiff to submit data to verify the acquisition value of the instant real estate on several occasions, but the Plaintiff failed to submit related documents.

C. According to the Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Related Acts and subordinate statutes”), the acquisition value of the instant real estate was calculated as KRW 000,00, and the difference between the said conversion value and the actual transaction value at the time of transfer is the transfer margin of the instant real estate, on the premise that the difference between the said conversion value and the actual transaction value at the time of transfer is the transfer margin of the instant real estate, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the payment of KRW 60,026,813 as the transfer income tax reverted to the year 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant taxation”).

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 1 and 3, Eul evidence 1 and 3, and Eul evidence 8-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the claim

A. Summary of the cause of the claim

In the disposition of this case by the defendant, the acquisition price of the real estate of this case was calculated by falsely manipulating the real price of 000 won, not the actual transaction price of 000 won, and the transfer income tax was calculated, and the plaintiff's deposit claim was seized and collected based on the illegal taxation as above, and the Seoul Jongno-gu OOdong 000 BOdong 00, and the plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to 000 won in total, and the defendant is liable to pay the above money and delay damages to the plaintiff as compensation for unjust enrichment or tort.

B. Determination

In this case, it is insufficient to find that the defendant fabricated the acquisition value of the real estate in this case by falsity, or there is no other substantive and procedural errors, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and as seen earlier, the defendant requested the rate of the standard market price at the time of the transfer of the real estate at the time of the acquisition of the real estate in this case under the Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and calculated "in the way of estimating the value of the land transaction at the time of the acquisition according to the above ratio based on the actual transaction value at the time of the transfer of the real estate in this case," and based on this, the tax disposition in this case was legitimate. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the tax disposition in this case is legitimate. Accordingly, the plaintiff's unjust enrichment or the claim for damages on the premise that the tax disposition in this case is unlawful, and there is no reason to further examine the remaining points without any further

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.