Suwon District Court 2013Gudan5207 ( October 13, 2015)

Early High Court Decision 2013J 2680 (O4, 2013.09)

Whether the transfer value of the real estate and machinery of this case is appropriate and whether the calculation method is justifiable.

In light of the evidence, the transfer value of the real estate and machinery alleged by the plaintiff is unreasonable, and the transfer value of the real estate and machinery is unclear.

Article 100 (Calculation of Gains on Transfer, etc.)

Seoul High Court 2015Nu37107 ( March 15, 2015)

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gudan5207 Decided October 13, 2015

June 17, 2015

July 15, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The disposition of imposition of KRW 137,618,980, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on August 7, 2012, which was rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on August 7, 2012, is revoked (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 137,618,980, which was stated in the purport of the appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for a partial change in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as provided in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

2. The modified part;

○ 16,476,030 won was reported and paid “13,236,030 won was reported and paid.” On December 8, 2006, capital gains tax amounting to KRW 3,240,000 was corrected and notified and paid (the total amount paid is KRW 16,476,030).

○ The second page " August 6, 2012" is " August 7, 2012," and the third page "the defendant" is "the plaintiff," respectively.

○ In the second half of the imposition of capital gains tax as of August 7, 2012, "the imposition of KRW 137,618,980 remaining after the correction is made" is added to "the disposition of this case" (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

○ Parts 3 11 to 4 8 of the 3rd page shall be deleted, and the following shall be added thereto:

【2) The Plaintiff requested a contract in which the sales price of the instant real estate was higher than the actual transaction price in order to obtain a loan of the instant real estate as collateral and prepared a sales contract with respect to the instant real estate and machinery. In this regard, the representative director of 00 IMs prepared and issued a letter and written confirmation that he would be responsible for the Plaintiff when the issue of the subsequent transfer income tax, etc. arises. The 00 Ms appropriated the excessive real estate asset price in the major statement of the 2006 business year for the above reasons. The Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 59,658,880 on February 2, 2006 for the instant machinery and equipment and received the above value-added tax, and then divided the tax invoice for the instant machinery and equipment into two copies. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff reported that the transfer price of the instant real estate was unlawful in calculating and issuing the transfer price of the instant real estate as the transfer price of the instant real estate as the price of the instant real estate as the price of the instant real estate as the price of the instant machinery and equipment.

○ Parts V through VI of the 5th page shall be deleted, and the following shall be added to those Parts:

“4) The sales contract made between the Plaintiff and 00M expenses in relation to the instant real estate and machinery is all four sales contracts. Of them, the sales contract made on July 13, 2006 with the purchase price of KRW 80 million is written as “a separate settlement of accounts,” and the sales contract made on August 9, 2006 with the purchase price of KRW 80 million is written as “a separate settlement of accounts,” and all the buildings, including factories and buildings and warehouses, and a separate settlement of accounts is made,” and the sales contract made on July 13, 2006 with the purchase price of KRW 1.1 billion is written as “land, building, warehouse, and KRW 80 million in total, KRW 30 million in value added (value added).” The sale contract made on July 13, 2006 with the purchase price of KRW 1.50 million in total as “land, warehouse, building 300 million in value attached” list of KRW 1.500 million in value attached.

○ Parts 4 through 13 of the 9th page shall be deleted and the following shall be added to those Parts:

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the facts of recognition as to the second assertion, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is legitimate in calculating the transfer value pursuant to Article 166 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 48-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act by deeming that the transfer value of the instant real estate and machinery is unclear. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the transfer price of the instant real estate is KRW 80 million and the transfer price of the instant machinery is KRW 630 million is without merit.

○ Of note 10 9, 10 deleted and add to that part the following:

The sales contract, which marks the sales price of the instant real estate as KRW 80 million, is questionable as to whether the specific content of the sales contract differs from each other. As to the 1.5 billion sales contract, the value of the instant machinery is indicated as KRW 300 million, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the transfer price of the instant real estate is KRW 80 million, as asserted by the Plaintiff.

○ Parts 11 to 15 shall be deleted from the 10th page.

3. Conclusion

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