Seoul Administrative Court 2008Gudan13692 ( October 29, 2009)

Review Transfer 2008-0062 (26. 2008.06)

Actual acquisition value of transferred real estate;

The acquisition contract submitted by the Plaintiff is not only inconsistent with the method of entry or contents but also with the transferor's former transfer, and it is difficult to believe the plaintiff's assertion because the certificate of confirmation of the object of brokerage is attached thereto.

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

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 241,135,660 against the plaintiff on January 10, 2008 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 2, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred the value of KRW 5.1 billion to Da○○○○○-dong 12-18 square meters, and the first floor underground floor of the concrete slive roof, and the fourth floor neighborhood living facilities on the ground (hereinafter “instant real property”) around 12.1 billion won, and voluntarily reported and paid capital gains tax of KRW 234,970,632 to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant return and payment”).

B. On January 10, 2008, the Defendant considered the acquisition value of the instant real estate as KRW 3.23 billion, not KRW 3.23 billion, and determined the transfer income tax for the year 2006, and then notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the correction of the transfer income tax for the year 2006 after deducting the amount of tax credit, such as the already paid, from the calculated amount of property tax (including the additional tax) as above, 241,135,660 (including the calculated amount of tax (including the additional tax) - KRW 508,031,031,026 - KRW 266,895,360, and below KRW 100).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2-1 to 2

Each entry, 12, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff's principal

Although the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate, the instant disposition that the Defendant deemed the acquisition value of the instant real estate as KRW 3.23 billion is unlawful, even if it was deemed that it was KRW 3.2 billion.

B. Determination

(1) In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 6-1, Eul evidence Nos. 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2-6, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2-5, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1 and 4-1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 4-2, and Eul’s witness Nos. 4-1 and 4-1 through 3, the witness of the first instance trial, the witness of the first instance trial, the witness of the first instance trial, and the witness of the Yellow-A, all of which are acknowledged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(A) The Plaintiff submitted a real estate sales contract (No. 2-5) in which the sales price of the instant real estate was 3.23 billion won at the time of the instant return and payment. The said sales contract is completely identical with the real estate sales contract (No. 4-2) kept by SongB at the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant real estate. On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted that the sales price of the instant real estate was 3.73 billion won at the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant real estate, and the sales contract (No. 4) of the commercial building in which the sales price of the instant real estate was 3.73 billion won at the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant real estate is 3.5 billion won, and the method and contents of the sales contract (No. 4-2) of the real estate kept by SongB, and the Plaintiff did not appear to have been prepared as the sales contract (No. 4-300 million won, the real estate sales price of the instant real estate was 3.5 billion won at the time of the sales price of the instant real estate.

(B) At the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant real estate through a written confirmation (Evidence No. 4-1) and a witness of the first instance trial, SongB prepared a sales contract of commercial building (Evidence No. 4) with the sales value of the instant real estate as KRW 3.73 billion at the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant real estate, but thereafter, the Plaintiff agreed to change the sales value of the instant real estate from KRW 3.73 billion to KRW 3.23 billion, which was the seller and the Plaintiff, the buyer, to the sales value of the instant real estate at KRW 3.23 billion, requesting the re-preparation of the previous sales contract and discarded the previous sales contract and re-preparation the real estate sales contract (Evidence No. 2-5) with the sales value of KRW 3.23 billion with the purchase value of the instant real estate at his/her own expense in accordance with the re-preparation sales contract.

(C) At the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant real estate, the ○○ Branch and Vice-Director of the YCC, who was in charge of lending KRW 1 billion to the Plaintiff as collateral, stated to the effect that he prepared cash worth KRW 500 million in addition to KRW 300 million in cash at the Plaintiff’s request by the witness of the first instance trial, along with the Plaintiff and the police assigned for special guard, in a seller’s car located in the parking lot. However, in light of the fact that the seller stated that he received KRW 500 million in cash from the Plaintiff at the trial witness of the party but did not memory that he received money in the above manner, it is difficult to believe that the above statement by the YCC is made.

(D) On April 29, 2005, the receipt (Evidence B No. 3-1) prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff after he received part of the remainder (the remainder amount of KRW 1.23 billion from the remainder amount of KRW 1.98 billion) stated that he received part of the remainder amount of KRW 532 million from the remainder amount of KRW 1.3 billion from the remainder amount of KRW 1.3 billion from the lease deposit amount of KRW 1.98 billion succeeded to the Plaintiff, and the receipt (Evidence B-2) prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff after he received the remainder amount of KRW 3.3 billion from the remainder amount of KRW 5 billion from the remainder amount of KRW 1.3 billion from the remainder amount of KRW 1.4 billion from the purchase and sale price of the real estate at KRW 3.4 billion from the remainder amount of KRW 3 billion from the sale and sale price of the real estate at KRW 3.4 billion from the purchase price of the real estate at KRW 2.5 billion from the remainder amount of KRW 3 billion from the sale and sale price of the real estate at KRW 3.3 billion.3 billion.

(2) Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition that deemed the acquisition value of the instant real estate as KRW 3.23 billion is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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