early 2012 Heavy1241 (Law No. 11267, 2012)

This disposition is legitimate as the actual acquisition value of the purchase price under the approval agreement.

In light of the fact that there is no specific and objective financial data to recognize that the transferor of real estate has paid the amount exceeding the purchase price under the seal of approval contract, and that the transferor reported capital gains tax along with the seal of approval contract and the confirmation document of real estate transaction prepared by the plaintiff, etc., the disposition that deemed the purchase price as real acquisition

201Gudan1410 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimAAAA

Head of Suwon Tax Office

May 22, 2013

July 17, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2010 against the Plaintiff on January 11, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2001. 8. 29. 엄OO으로부터 화성시 봉담읍 0000 공장용지 1，926㎡， 같은 리 000 공장용지 1，861㎡， 같은 리 0000 도로 26㎡' 같은 리 0000 도로 66㎡' 같은 리 000-2， 000-3 지 상 공장 등 건물(면적 합계 1，636.36㎡)(이 하 '이 사건 각 부동산'이라고 한다) 중 각 1/2 지분(이하 '이 사건 각 쟁점 부동산'이라고 한 다)을 취득하여 보유하다가， 2010. 7. 15. 주식회사 OOO에게 이 사건 각 쟁점 부동산을 대금 000원에 양도하였다.

B. On September 19, 2010, the Plaintiff entered the transfer value as KRW 000,000, the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition, and paid KRW 000,000,00, which is the conversion value calculated by dividing the transfer value as the standard market price, on the ground that the transfer value cannot be confirmed.

C. The Defendant recognized KRW 00 as the actual transaction price at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of each of the instant real estate at the time of the acquisition of each of the instant real estate, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000,000, the capital gains tax on January 11, 2012, which reverts to the Plaintiff in 2010 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

D. On February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 20, 2012, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 27, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 3, and Eul evidence 5

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the seal of approval written between MaO and the plaintiff on each of the issues of this case was prepared, regardless of the actual purchase price, for the purpose of transfer of registration, the sale price of KRW 000 stated in the seal of approval agreement was not the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition of each of the issues of this case by the plaintiff, the defendant made the disposition of this case on the premise that the sale price stated in the seal of approval agreement was the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition by the plaintiff on each of the issues

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On June 30, 2001, HO acquired each of the instant real estate from UO and UOO, and thereafter, on August 29, 2001, the Plaintiff attempted to share one half of the instant real estate.

2) In the process of completing the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name at the time of the said transfer, the term “sale price shall be KRW 000,000, and the down payment shall be paid on August 20, 2001, and the remainder shall be paid on August 25, 2001.”

3) On June 30, 2001, HO borrowed KRW 000 as collateral from the National Bank of Korea on the instant real estate, and repaid KRW 00 on August 21, 2001, and KRW 00 on August 29, 2001, and KRW 00 on August 31, 2001, respectively. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 00 as collateral the instant real estate from the Industrial Bank of Korea on August 29, 2001, and repaid KRW 00 on January 11, 200, and KRW 00 on January 21, 2002, and at the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff on August 20, 201.

4) In the course of lending money as security for each of the instant real estate to OO, the Korean Appraisal Board requested the market appraisal of each of the instant real estate with the exception of 000-5 m26 m2, 000 m2, 000 m26 m2, Y-do, Y-si, and OO appraised the aggregate market price of each of the instant real estate as of June 20, 2001.

5) The sum of the standard market prices at the time of August 29, 2001, at each of the instant real estate issues, is KRW 000.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 5, Gap evidence Nos. 6, Gap evidence Nos. 7-1 and 7, Gap evidence Nos. 8-1 through 4, and the results of the order to submit financial transaction information to national banks in this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

1) The Claimant must prove that the stamp contract prepared by the parties to the transaction and affixed the seal of approval of the Mayor, the head of the Gun, etc. is presumed to have been prepared according to the sales contract between the parties, and that the contract was prepared differently from the actual ones (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2353, Apr. 9, 1993).

2) In light of the above legal principles, although the Plaintiff stated on August 20, 201 in the Health Unit Agreement that the Plaintiff would pay 0000 won only with respect to the sale and purchase of each of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff deposited 000 won in the deposit account in the name of the National Bank in the name of the Plaintiff’s wife on the same day in the name of MaOO, although the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant real estate from the Industrial Bank of Korea on August 29, 2001, he borrowed 00 won from MaO on the same day and repaid the same amount to the National Bank of Korea on the same day by MaO, MaO, and 00 won on the purchase price under the seal of this case, and 00 won on the purchase price of each of the instant real estate was 00 square meters or more at the time of OO and 200 square meters at each of the instant real estate sales price were 100 or more (300 or more evidence No. 200. 920.20).20 of each of the instant real estate.

① In the process of filing a request for pre-assessment review and a request for trial, the Plaintiff continuously asserted to the effect that “The real estate of this case was acquired under the pretext of payment in lieu of the amount equivalent to KRW 000,000, which was leased by the original co-owners of each real estate of this case,” but only was punished in the process of registration, and that the approval seal of this case was prepared regardless of the actual purchase price for the purpose of transfer of registration,” and that “the approval seal of this case was prepared regardless of the actual purchase price for the purpose of transfer of registration,” and that “the Plaintiff acquired each of the issues of this case by paying the purchase price of 00,000 won in total by account transfer

② Even if 00 won deposited under the Plaintiff’s name on August 20, 201 in the deposit account in the National Bank’s name of DoOO was paid as the purchase price for each of the issues of this case by the Plaintiff, there is no specific and objective financial data to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid DoO more than 00 won as the purchase price for each of the issues of this case.

③ At the time of acquiring each of the issues of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff prepared and executed a certificate of real estate transactions stating that “the Plaintiff purchased each of the issues of the instant real estate at KRW 000 as of August 20, 2001,” like the content of the instant seal of approval agreement.

④ According to the relevant laws and regulations that had been enforced at the time of transfer of each of the instant issues to the Plaintiff, in the event that the Plaintiff transfers real estate within one year after the acquisition, the transfer value was determined based on the actual transaction value, and the Plaintiff reported the transfer value as “00 won” upon reporting the transfer income tax by attaching the approval seal agreement of the instant case and the confirmation document of the said real estate transaction pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes after the transfer.

(5) In calculating gains on transfer, which is the tax base of capital gains tax, the actual transaction price which is the basis means the actual amount agreed for the transaction price itself or at the time of transaction, not the general market price reflecting the objective exchange values.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Sallon;

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.