Seoul Administrative Court 2013Gudan5328 ( November 27, 2013)

Although the transfer value of the building is written at zero won under the sales contract, a disposition in which the land and the building are calculated as the standard market price is legitimate.

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance) The portion in which the sales price of the building is KRW 0 cannot be proven to support the actual transaction price of the building, and no other evidence exists to verify the actual transfer price of the building of this case. Thus, a disposition divided according to the standard market price of the land and the building is legitimate.

2013Nu52904 Disposition of revocation of refusal to correct capital gains tax

KimA

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Gudan53328 decided November 27, 2013

July 15, 2014

September 2, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the defendant's refusal to correct the capital gains tax against the plaintiff on October 15, 2012.

the court that revoked this section.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is that the reasoning for this case is stated in the part of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the following judgments, and thus, the same is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. The defendant's main defense

The defendant asserts that if the transfer value of the building of this case is zero won as the plaintiff's assertion, the transfer of the building of this case constitutes a gift, and if so, the transfer of the building of this case is not possible to deduct necessary expenses for the building of this case, and thus, the legitimate tax amount (paid tax amount) exceeds the tax amount already paid by the plaintiff, and the tax amount to be refunded even if necessary expenses for the building of this case are added to the necessary expenses for the building of this case without family affairs, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this

B. Determination

1) Details of the Plaintiff’s claim of this case

The Plaintiff calculated the transfer value of the building of this case as zero won at the time of the report and payment of transfer income tax, while the special long-term holding deduction for the building of this case was paid by the Defendant by calculating the long-term holding deduction for the building of this case as zero won, and the Defendant determined transfer income tax based on the divided value of the above issues as standard market price on the premise that the transfer value of the land and building of this case is unclear by field investigation (the transfer value, acquisition value and necessary expenses of the land of this case were calculated by adding all the transfer value of the land of this case and building of this case, so the transfer income tax amount reported by the Plaintiff and the transfer income tax amount determined by the Defendant were the same as the transfer income tax amount of the building of this case). The Plaintiff asserted that the special long-term holding deduction for the building of this case was insufficiently appropriated on the premise that the transfer value of the building of this case was zero won upon the request of this case (the purpose that the long-term holding special deduction should have been calculated as

2) In light of the contents asserted by the Defendant, namely, whether the transfer value of the building of this case constitutes a donation, whether the transfer amount of the building of this case constitutes a legitimate tax amount already paid, if the transfer of the building of this case constitutes a donation, and whether there is no tax amount to be refunded even if the necessary expenses of the building of this case are added to the necessary expenses of the land, etc., can only be determined through the deliberation of the merits, and it cannot be determined by the Plaintiff’s assertion itself that the disposition of this case, which rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction, did not infringe the Plaintiff’s legal rights or interests due to the disposition of this case, and it is necessary to recognize the legal basis and calculation details of the legitimate tax amount, as well as the benefit of lawsuit of this case is not limited to the difference of the tax amount. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case has a legal interest in the lawsuit of this case

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.