early 209west2746 ( December 28, 2009)

Any disposition that calculates the transfer margin on the basis of the standard market price on the grounds that the transfer value is unclear.

A sales contract shall be prepared without the brokerage of a licensed real estate agent, and shall be paid at the time of a contract for down payment not paid at the time of the actual contract, and it is reasonable to view that the transfer value is unclear in view of the fact that the obligation to return deposit

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 226,101,590 for the Plaintiff on June 5, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On April 21, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired 33/10 shares of ○○○○○○○○, 1244, 701 and 801, ○○○○○, ○○○○○, 1244 (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) by selling together with KimA (34/100 of shares), and JungB (33/100 of shares), and the Plaintiff, KimA, and HaB (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) transferred each of the above shares of ownership to BoCC on January 2, 2007.

B. The Plaintiff’s transfer value of the instant shares is KRW 1,320,000,000, and acquisition value is KRW 1,653,661,350.

(including district heating and facility construction cost) calculated the transfer income tax and reported the transfer income tax. The Defendant, on June 5, 2009, calculated the transfer value reported by the Plaintiff based on the standard market price of the real estate of this case as KRW 1,377,094,290, acquisition value of the instant shares as KRW 908,119,132, and necessary expenses as KRW 226,101,598, based on the standard market price of the real estate of this case, and imposed the transfer income tax on KRW 573,27.243,57.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 14 (including a Gazy number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 7, 9

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff et al. transferred the instant real estate to UCC at KRW 4 billion, and the transfer value is confirmed by the documents such as sales contract and receipts, but the assessment and imposition of transfer income tax based on the standard market price is unlawful on the ground that the actual transaction price is not verified.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In light of the evidence that the Plaintiff et al. transferred the instant real estate at KRW 4 billion, there is a testimony of Gap 2, 3, 10, 15, and 25 (including the serial number) and witnessCC. However, the sales contract prepared between the Plaintiff et al. and UCC is prepared without brokerage of a licensed real estate agent, i.e., the sales contract made between the Plaintiff et al. at the time of the contract, and the amount of KRW 80 million for the down payment not paid at the time of the actual contract. The obligation to return the deposit is not specified, and it is doubtful whether the purchase price of the instant real estate was made under the real contract between the parties, such as the sale price of the instant real estate, and it is difficult to view that the sale price of the instant real estate was made at KRW 4 billion, or that it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff et al. was paid at KRW 3.2 billion,000,0000,000,000,000 won other than the standard market price of the instant real estate.

Therefore, it is deemed that there is no book, sales contract, receipt, or other documentary evidence necessary to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of the transfer of the instant land, or there is no material part thereof. The instant disposition imposing capital gains tax on the transfer value and acquisition value of the instant real estate based on the standard market price on the grounds that there is no transaction example or appraisal value of the instant real estate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.