Cancellation of Disposition of Transfer Income Tax Imposition

The computation of the officially assessed individual land price of this case is not unlawful, the actual transaction price is applied, the transfer price is calculated by the purchase price under the key contract, and the acquisition price is determined by conversion price.

Articles 162(1), 114(4), and 96(1) of the Income Tax Act

Cheongju District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-556

A building permit was issued for the storage and disposal of dangerous substances on the land outside of the issues.

8) Details of changes in the officially announced value of the entire land of this case are as follows:

- 8-

Date of public notice of the officially assessed individual land price base year;

Category 1 Land

**Lisan 9-4

January 1, 2010 5,090 May 31, 2010

January 1, 2004 June 30, 2004

**9-5

January 1, 2010 5,090 May 31, 2010

January 1, 2004 June 30, 2004

Issue 2 Land

**** 232-4

January 1, 2010, 2010 May 31, 2010

January 1, 2005, 2005 May 31, 2005

October 30, 2004 on July 1, 2004

January 1, 2004 June 30, 2004

**** 232-5

January 1, 2010, 2010 May 31, 2010

January 1, 2005, 2005 May 31, 2005

October 30, 2004 4,820 October 30, 2004

Land outside this issue

**Lisan 9-1

January 1, 2010 5,090 May 31, 2010

January 1, 2004 June 30, 2004

**** 232-2

January 1, 2010, 2010 May 31, 2010

January 1, 2005 8,000 May 31, 2005

January 1, 2004 June 30, 2004

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 13, 23, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 7

Each entry in this Court,* the result of fact inquiry about the head of this Court, as a whole,

Purport

D. Lawful of the disposition in this case

1) Determination on the first argument

The evidence mentioned above, each of the evidence set forth in Nos. 8 through 11, and the holding of the whole pleadings.

In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s transfer value and acquisition value

It is difficult to regard the calculation of the officially assessed individual land price as the basis of proportional distribution as illegal, and otherwise recognize it.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

- 9-

A)***L 232-4 Land, as of July 1, 2004, the officially assessed individual land price is the land development activity above.

The purpose of the above is to apply the status of land use to commerce sites on the grounds that it was a creation of a gas station site.

The standard site is deemed to have been determined by applying it as the representative land of the gas station,**i 232-5 land

In the case of the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2005, the current status of the surrounding land use is a commercial and business zone.

Land has no building or is temporarily used for another purpose, but commercial in the nearest future.

or the land which is highly likely to be used and developed for business purposes is deemed to have been assessed as commercial or industrial areas.

In addition, there is no illegality in the decision of the officially announced value of the appraisal.

B) Land is in the situation where access roads are substantially secured with permission for development activities;

If it is easy to enter and leave easily, it can not be seen as a franchise, and it can not be viewed as a franchise on the land of this case.

(1) The appraisal document prepared at the auction procedure shall also have the right to access to the land of this case.

· The key land of this case is linked to national highways 34 lines, because it is stated that access is possible.

It seems that the passage has been sufficiently possible by using the land adjacent to or adjacent to.

C) The fact that investigating daily factors are considered in calculating the officially assessed value.

Since it is not possible under the premise that various conditions are identical in calculating the officially announced land price, the shortest position is the same.

The election interest shall be investigated, and the person in charge of the investigation of the local government shall be investigated.

The decision shall be made by taking this into account, even in the case of the land at issue.

As long as the distance from roads is measured according to the judgment of a certified public appraiser, such inspection and calculation results;

such errors may not be deemed to exist.

D) A variety of persons, persons, or permits in the absence of a building on the key land of this case

The sole fact that he/she received the A does not make it difficult to distinguish the main and subsidiary uses from the main and subsidiary uses.

It is difficult to view it as a system, and it is reasonable to conduct individual lot surveys rather than a complex investigation.

- 10 -

E) After the public notice of the officially assessed individual land price, the Plaintiff must take about about 10 years,* military administration, Chungcheongbuk-do

A civil petition is filed with the Office of Audit and Inspection and the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission; however, the above agency’s officially announced value;

It determined that there was no law.

F) As alleged by the Plaintiff, the instant land 2 is compared with neighboring land.

Even if a relatively high-priced assessment is made, the difference in characteristics, assessment factors, etc. for each land.

(A) may increase or decrease the officially assessed individual land price for the purpose of land price calculation, so that such increase or decrease may also be made;

The sole reason is that the determination of individual land price is illegal.

2) Determination on the second argument

A) In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 11 and the purport of the entire pleadings, this shall not apply.

HH, the owner of the land at issue, HH and AA, the owner of the land at issue,

On March 25, 2003, the contract to sell the land at issue to the Plaintiff at KRW 370 million.

Done by HH, on May 26, 2003, the intermediate payment of KRW 180 million, and on June 16, 2003, HH 7,000.

The fact that only KRW 00 has been received from the Plaintiff is recognized by preparing a receipt.

B) However, AA has delegated the right to receive the purchase price to HH, or only that has entrusted the right.

D. The Plaintiff confirmed that the Plaintiff was paid the purchase price by the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff confirmed that the purchase price was paid by the Plaintiff

The sales price of the instant land No. 2 on June 16, 2003 to AA by the seller of the land at issue 2

There is no evidence to prove that the liquidation had been completed, and rather, according to the statements in Gap evidence 5, AA.

The Plaintiff, as of January 29, 2004, entered into a sales contract on the land of this case 2 at issue and entered into a sales contract and entered into a sales contract.

The 19 million won was paid and received at the time of the contract, and the issues of this case 2

At the time of the registration of transfer of the Plaintiff’s ownership, the grounds for registration are indicated as the sale on January 29, 2014.

Inasmuch as facts can be recognized, at any time, the date of settlement of the price for the land at issue 2

- 11 -

Therefore, the acquisition date of the Plaintiff’s land at issue 2 is not clear. Therefore, the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Article 162 (1) 1 shall be seen as February 4, 2004, which is the date of registration of ownership transfer pursuant to Article 162 (1).

C) If so, the plaintiff acquired the 2 land of this case on February 4, 2004, and acquired it on February 4, 2004

12. Since the transfer to BB on 28.28, the issue of this case 2 land is within one year after the Plaintiff acquired it.

the real estate held by the Corporation and based on the actual transaction price under Article 96 (1) 4 of the former Income Tax Act;

D. The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3) Judgment on the third argument

We examine the above facts and the evidence mentioned above, as well as the statements and arguments mentioned in Eul Nos. 1, 2, and 5.

In light of the following circumstances revealed in full view of the overall purport of the contract of this case

It should be viewed as the actual transaction price of the entire land of this case in the amount of KRW 940 million, which is the upper purchase price.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

A) In the Defendant’s reinvestigation, EE sells the entire land of this case to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

A person in a prison relationship was led by others, and the purchase price was KRW 940 million.

B) The Plaintiff totaled 2 on the key contract deposit and the first and second intermediate payment payment date in the instant case

KK and JJ received KRW 50 million from KK and JJ.

C) The Plaintiff: (a) KRW 400 million that FF received from BB is not the purchase price, but the EE.

EE argues that the existing debt repayment (A No. 24), but EE does not know the FF and does not know the F. 40 million won.

FF also means that there is no fact that it was borrowed, and the FF does not keep the FF in detail at the time.

As such, it is difficult to view the above KRW 400 million as an existing debt repayment.

D) EE is accompanied by the broker with GG upon the preparation of the contract and 50 million won for the Plaintiff.

of 5,400,000 won, which is known to have been paid by the CCC and the plaintiff.

- 12-

40,000,000 won was stated as "unpaid trading balance," and the above KRW 90,000,000 and the plaintiff and Turkey

If the amount of KRW 850,000,000 that has been transferred to the column is added, 94,000,000 under the instant contract at issue.

of this chapter. The same shall apply to all members

E) Even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the actual purchaser of the entire land of this case is BB.

It is not EE, but EE, and the balance between EE and the plaintiff and CCC on September 20, 2004.

The contract was stipulated to pay the balance, which is consistent with the payment date of the balance under the contract of this case.

F) Unlike the approval seal contract of this case, the sales system for the special terms of the contract of this case

The details relating to the performance of drugs are specifically specified.

4) Determination on the fourth argument

In the case of No. 11, the issue of this case 2 as seen in the above paragraph 2.

In addition, there is a contract of January 29, 2004, which set forth the purchase price as KRW 19 million for land, and there is a contract of January 29, 2004

In addition, in the light of the fact that the grounds for registration in the register are also stated as the sale and purchase on January 29, 2004, it shall be trusted.

It is difficult to recognize the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition of the pertinent land; and

Evidence recognizing transaction example and appraisal value under Article 97 (1) 1 (c) of the former Income Tax Act;

Since the Defendant did not transfer or take over KRW 940,000,000,000,000 in the transfer value under the instant contract

The disposition of this case is unlawful in the calculation of acquisition value based on the standard market price at the time of acquisition.

It is difficult to deem that there is this.

3. Conclusion

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

F. F

GG Head of the tax office

April 19, 2018

May 24, 2018

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is 9-4 forest land 2,55 square meters in san9-4 forest land** in * in * in ** in * in * in * in * in * in * in * in *

And the same Dosan 9-5 Forest Land 2,005 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "each of the above land" is the issue of this case)

HH from August 7, 2003, on August 20, 2003, the transfer of ownership, etc. in the Plaintiff’s name on August 20, 203

Acquisition of electric meters and *** 232-4 998 m200 m232-5 m250 m258 m200 m20

Land is called "2 land in this case", and 'the 1 and 2 land in this case' is called "the key land in this case."

on January 29, 2004, on February 4, 2004, the ownership in the name of the plaintiff on February 4, 2004

The transfer registration has been acquired after completing it.

B. On December 28, 2004, the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of the instant key land to BB.

On December 10, 2004, selling the key land of this case to BB at the time of transfer in KRW 170,000,000.

I. A sales contract (No. 6, hereinafter referred to as "the approval seal of this case") ** the approval seal of the head of the Gun

was made.

C. The plaintiff before being amended by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005 under the former Income Tax Act on February 28, 2005

Pursuant to Article 96 of the former Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "former Income Tax Act"), the first land at issue of this case shall be seen as one year or longer.

In fact, the standard market price was applied, and the land of this case 2 was owned for less than one year.

Transfer Income by applying the transaction value to 114,252,035 won in total;

The defendant reported 50,009,380 won to the defendant and submitted the approval seal of this case.

D. Meanwhile, the BB purchased and owned from CCC**risan 9-1 Forest land 2,667 square meters

- 3-

And the same Ri 232-2 Before 998 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "each of the above lands") is called "other land than the issue of this case", and this company

The key issues of this case, "the entire land of this case" and "the land of this case other than the key issues of this case"

on June 24, 2010, at the voluntary auction procedure with respect to land, DDR pays the proceeds of sale and takes ownership.

BB acquired the acquisition value of the entire land of this case in the Second Tax Secretary KRW 940 million.

on July 28, 2004 and the entire land of this case from the Plaintiff and CCC collectively 9

Written Agreement (Evidence A No. 9, No. 12, and No. 7, No. 6) that purchase KRW 40 million

On the other hand, hereinafter referred to as 'the issue of this case' was submitted.

E. The defendant reported the actual transaction price of the land in this case from the second director of the tax office.

Upon receipt of notice different from the content, 940 million won under the key issue contract of this case as a whole in this case

The actual transaction price of land, and the amount of KRW 940 million at the time of transfer and at the time of acquisition by lots;

After re-calculated the transfer value and acquisition value of the land in question in proportion to the standard market price.

On April 6, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of KRW 499,111,040 of the transfer income tax for the year 2004.

F. After that, the defendant judged that the land of this case No. 1 was owned by the plaintiff for at least one year.

such value is not calculated in accordance with the actual transaction value, and the content of the plaintiff's standard market price;

The key issue of this case is that the land of this case 2 is calculated in accordance with the method of the above E. The main issue of this case

The transfer value of land shall be deemed KRW 622,771,783, and the amount reverted to the Plaintiff on April 13, 2015.

Do income tax was re-revision and notified as KRW 467,661,590 (hereinafter the above-mentioned reduction and correction)

4. As of June 2004, the transfer income tax of KRW 467,661,590 was imposed "the disposition in this case"

G. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition on July 10, 2015, but August 13, 2015.

On November 18, 2015, the Tax Tribunal dismissed, and filed a request for a tax trial on February 4, 2016.

on the basis of the financial transaction details, etc. on the amount of transfer paid to the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff

- 4-

according to the result, the tax base and tax amount of the disposition of this case shall be corrected, and the remaining appeal shall be filed.

"Dismissal" was ruled.

H. Accordingly, the Defendant’s re-audit on March 26, 2016 on the transaction price of the instant contract.

Details of the relevant financial transaction and BB(EE) of the verified amount of KRW 940 million, such as details of transactions, etc.

Based on the answer, confirmation, etc., the taxation content shall be deemed to be legitimate and reasonable.

The investigation was completed that there is no matter to be corrected due to lawful disposition.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 7

(including serial numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) In calculating transfer income of the pertinent land, the basis for calculating the tax base was the basis for calculating the tax base.

The price determination of individual land is based on the officially assessed land price determined illegally as follows:

(n) ‘First argument'.

A) As of July 1, 2004, ***i 232-4 land of the issues of this case as of July 1, 2004

land at issue 2 of this case is previous land use because there was no reporting of commencement and construction commencement.

It should be assessed as a commercial area, but it has been assessed as a commercial area.

B) The issues of this case 2 are linked to roads as a result of land characteristics survey on 2004.

As a result, the price distribution rate was applied, but at the time of 204, 34 in the vicinity of the key land of this case.

The issue of this case was the construction or the vehicle entrance and exit of the national highway.

Land should have been assessed as blind land.

- 5-

C) The lowest straight line from the boundary of the main road to the individual lot is private;

Despite the fact that the land at issue is within 500 meters in total, the land at issue of this case is the shortest position.

It affected the price distribution rate by applying different rates from the fact that the election rate is at least 500 meters.

D) The key land of this case is a group of lots of land so that it is indivisible for use.

Since the relationship should be assessed as a complex, all of them shall be assessed as individual land, and this shall also be assessed as such.

The individual land price of the 2nd issue was too high.

2) Even if the determination of individual land price is not illegal, the Plaintiff’s key land

The purchase price related to the purchase is settled on June 16, 2003 and at that time the land of this case is acquired and permitted.

As the plaintiff transferred to the President on December 28, 2004, the plaintiff was subject to the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (the President on February 19, 2005).

Pursuant to Article 162(1) of the Decree, the issues of this case are discussed.

14(4) main sentence of Article 114(1) and the main sentence of Article 96(1) of the former Income Tax Act, as it possesses one year or more.

Pursuant to this, even if the transfer income tax shall be imposed on the basis of the “standard market price”, the Defendant’s dispute in this case

In this regard, 'the actual transaction price' was applied to 2 land and the disposition was made(hereinafter 'the second argument').

3) Even if the Defendant’s rectification is lawful based on the actual transaction price, the Defendant’s credibility is insufficient.

The transfer price of KRW 940,000,000,000 under the main contract of this case lacking shall be based on the actual transaction price.

In light of the amount, the disposition of this case is unlawful (hereinafter referred to as "third argument").

4) In addition, it is true that the defendant confirmed "acquisition value" that is deducted as necessary expenses for capital gains.

At the time of acquisition from the transfer value, the transfer value of KRW 370,000,000 (Evidence A 11) is not based on

(1) If the acquisition value is determined by conversion on the basis of

The argument is called ‘claim'.

B. Relevant statutes

- - Other

The key issue contract of this case

The main land of this case is the entire land of this case

Plaintiff, CCC

BBB by the purchaser BB

On December 10, 2004, July 28, 2004

Cost KRW 170 million 940 million ;00 million

Down payment: 30 million won on December 1, 2004; and 50 million won on July 28, 2004

part payments

On August 2, 2004, KRW 250 million in the first part payment of August 2, 2004

The second intermediate payment of August 16, 2004 KRW 350 million on August 16, 2004

Any balance of December 28, 2004 KRW 140 million on September 2004, 2000,000 on September 20, 2004

Special Agreement

Matters

○ Farmland 40 million won, non-farmland 1

30 million won

○ The starting date of the construction work by the buyer

○ Possibility for shortening the remainder payment date

○ Seller’s liability for the payment of service cost

○ Liability for changing the purchaser’s name, etc.

○ Disadvantages at the time of non-payment

○ Any person designated by the purchaser at the time of transfer of ownership

transfer of all documents to sight

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The seller of land, other than the instant issue, is the Plaintiff’s wife’s husband, and FF

The plaintiff is sentenced to punishment, and the JJJ of EE is the birth of BB and the external relationship.

2) The key contents of the approval seal agreement of this case and the key contents of the instant contract are as follows.

3) The Plaintiff and CCC shall read the EE and “Plaintiff, CCC, seller, and buyer,” respectively.

a special contract on the sales contract for the entire land of this case, the gas station and filling station, and the site for the rest area;

- - Other

Amount received by the remitter of the date of receipt (source)

July 28, 2004 Plaintiff III (EE's Branch) 50,000,000

JJ 200,000,000 on August 2, 2004

Plaintiff JJ 100,000,000 on August 16, 2004

December 29, 2004 FFB 400,000,000

December 29, 2004 Plaintiff BB 100,000,000

Total 850,000,000

Done at the port, and as in paragraph (2), the remaining amount until September 20, 2004, shall be the site after September 20, 2004.

any restrictive measure with respect to a license arising from the failure of the Corporation shall be liable to the seller.

The phrase "no" was determined.

4) In the account of the Plaintiff and FF, the following specifications of transactions are confirmed:

5) On February 7, 2005, the Plaintiff and CCC with the claimed amount of KRW 55.4 million and the entire amount of this case

The provisional attachment registration is completed on land.

6) Meanwhile, **** on August 14, 2013 from 2,254 square meters before subdivision ** on August 14, 2013

232-4 1,256 square meters prior to subdivisions*** Ri 232-4 from February 4, 2004*

232-5 Division has been registered, and CCC on July 12, 2003 * 232-2 soil before subdivision from the Gun *

Of the land, permission for development for the purpose of constructing a LPG charging station with respect to 98 square meters among the land was obtained, and the Plaintiff

His land around December 2003* before subdivision from head of *** the newly built site of gas stations with respect to the land** Ri232-4

The development permission was obtained for the purpose of creation permission.

7) The Plaintiff stored and treated dangerous substances in each land **i 232-4 and 9-5 on February 9, 2004

New construction permission to build snow, Class II neighborhood living facilities, and housing has been granted, and CCC on February 9, 2004