Actual transfer value of housing

Considering that the actual transaction value claimed by the Plaintiff is less than the amount of bank loans, the transfer value confirmed by the tax authority is recognized as the real transfer value.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 19,630,080 on January 2, 2009 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2001. 2. 19. 박AA으로부터 ○○시 ○○구 ○○동 491-20 ☐☐빌라 4층 402호(이하 '이 사건 주택'이라고 한다)를 취득하였다가, 같은 해 5. 21. 안AA에게 이 사건 주택을 양도한 다음, 같은 달 24.경 이 사건 주택의 양도에 관하여 매매대금이 20,000,000원으로 된 매매계약서(이하 '이 사건 1매매계약서'라고 한다) 등 증빙서류와 함께 이 사건 주택에 대한 양도가액을 실지거래가액으로 20,000,000원, 양도소득금액을 0원으로 하여 양도소득과세표준 예정신고를 하였다.

B. After October 20, 2003, AA transferred the instant house to the largestB, and around the 21st day of the same month, AA made a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income by making the acquisition value KRW 45,00,000 as the actual transaction price, along with evidential documents, such as a sales contract with the sales price of KRW 45,00,000,000 for the acquisition of the instant house (hereinafter “instant two sales contract”).

C. Accordingly, after investigating the difference between the Plaintiff and AAA’s reported value on the instant housing, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff underreported the transfer value differently from the fact, and calculated the transfer value of the instant housing at KRW 45,00,000, the sale value of the instant housing at KRW 23,80,000, and the transfer income at KRW 23,80,000, respectively. On January 2, 2009, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing the Plaintiff KRW 19,630,080, the transfer income tax for the year 2001.

[Reasons for Recognition] The purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3. 9 Eul's evidence Nos. 2-1 to 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 6-1 through 7-1 to 4

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff: (a) demanded AA to prepare a sales contract with a purchase price of KRW 45,00,000 when purchasing the instant housing; and (b) prepared the instant two sales contract; and (c) actually transferred AA with the instant housing in KRW 23,00,000, based on the sales contract, etc., the Defendant deemed the transfer price of KRW 45,00,000 as the actual transaction price based on the instant two sales contract, etc.; and (b) made the instant disposition, which was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to the relevant provisions of Article 94(1)1, Article 96(1)6, Article 114(2) and (4) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6557 of Dec. 31, 2001), the transfer value of the land or building shall be based on the standard market price: Provided, That the transfer value shall be based on the actual market price in cases where the real estate is within one year after acquisition, or where the transferor correctss the tax base and the tax amount due to omissions or errors in the reported details to the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment by the deadline for final return of tax base of transfer income, along with evidential documents, by the due date

Therefore, considering whether the transfer value of the house of this case is the actual transaction value, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 4-4, Eul evidence 5-4, Eul evidence 5-4, Eul evidence 5-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a whole, the sales contract of this case is a contract made as a broker of the DamageCC operating the BB brokerage office, and the contract of this case is 45,000,000 won in the loan column, 25,000,000 won in the loan column, and 25,5,000 won in the loan column of the special contract, and 30,000 won in the loan contract of this case were stated as 40,00 won in each of the above 00,00 won in consideration of the fact that the plaintiff's statement of this case and 300,000 won in the loan contract of this case was stated as 50,000 won in each of the above 40,000 won in the loan contract of this case.

3. Conclusion

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