Early High Court Decision 201J 5080 ( October 23, 2012)

It is reasonable to see that the total amount of subrogated and the total amount of loan obligation acquired by the seller to the auction creditor is the acquisition value.

Although the seller asserts that he/she paid the purchase price in addition to the sum of the amount of subrogated payment and the amount of loan obligation acquired by the seller to the auction creditor, he/she cannot be recognized in light of the fact that the seller fails to submit objective evidentiary data, and that the sales contract submitted by the plaintiff recognizes that the seller was prepared by fraudulent means

2012Guhap6651 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

Head of the tax office

November 30, 2012

December 28, 2012

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 capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 201 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 26, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased each stock farm site and its ground building (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant real estate”) located in Echeon-si from Non-Party KimB, OOri 00-00, 00-00, and 000, and transferred the said real estate to Non-Party GabD and GaE on July 29, 2009.

B. On September 5, 2009, the Plaintiff made a preliminary return and payment of KRW 000 to the Defendant with the acquisition value of the instant real estate as KRW 000 and the transfer value as KRW 000.

C. However, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate in KRW 000 as a result of the on-site investigation, and accordingly corrected the increase in the relevant gains on transfer, and accordingly, corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 (including additional taxes) of the transfer income tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On November 9, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 9, 201, but the said claim was dismissed on February 23, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 1, 7, and 8, and Eul evidence 1 to 3, and 11 (each number box), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In purchasing the instant real estate from the original KimB, the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 000,00 at the time of mooring, and the intermediate payment of KRW 000 until May 19, 2005, and the remaining amount of KRW 000 by May 26, 2005. Afterwards, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 000 to KimF’s deposit account on June 20, 2005, and KRW 000 to the intermediate payment of KRW 00,000, and the remainder payment of KRW 00,000,000,000,000 as security, and at least KRW 0,000,000,000 to be paid to the above real estate to KimF as a result of the instant sales contract, and the Defendant received at least the above KRW 00,000,000,000 from the above real estate as security, and paid the remainder to the above Plaintiff’s real estate to KimF, and thus, was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 97(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same), and each subparagraph of Article 94(1) of the same Act provide that the acquisition value of assets shall, in principle, be based on the actual transaction price required for the acquisition of assets, and where the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition cannot be confirmed, it shall be based on the transaction example, appraisal value, or conversion value prescribed by Presidential Decree. Here, the real acquisition value of assets that serve as the basis for calculating transfer income tax means the value acquired by the purchaser at the time of the transaction and paid for the price, which is objectively recognized by sales contract or other documentary evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du27592, Feb. 9, 2012).

(2) Based on the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff acquired the real estate of this case in 00 won, taking full account of the following circumstances recognized by the respective descriptions of the health unit, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 3 through 7, and 9 through 14 (including each number), Gap evidence 2 through 6, and 10 evidence (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole arguments and arguments, and the plaintiff acquired the real estate of this case in 00 won. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion on other premise is not acceptable.

① On May 26, 2005, the Plaintiff subrogated 000 won to the auction creditors of KimF, acquired 000 won as to the instant real estate, completed the registration of ownership transfer, and paid in full the above loan obligations after paying the loan obligations to Leecheon Livestock Industry Cooperatives. In this regard, KimF also stated that “The actual transfer value of the instant real estate is KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which the Plaintiff acquired at the time of the on-site investigation by the tax official.”

② 원고 제출의 인증서(갑 제2호증)에 첨부된 부동산매매계약서에는 원고가 2005. 5.17. 김FF으로부터 이 사건 부동산을 000원에 매수한 것으로 기재되어 있다. 그러나 ㉠ 김FF은 위 계약서의 진위 및 작성 경위에 관하여 과세관청 및 수사기관에서 "위 계약서는 원고가 2009년 7월경 이 사건 부동산을 타에 양도하면서 사후에 작성한 계약서로 사실과 다른 계약서이다. 당시 원고로부터 돈을 빌려주겠다는 회유를 받고 위와 같이 허위의 매매계약서를 작성・공증하게 된 것이다 는 취지로 진술한 점，㉡ 김FF이 이 사건 부동산의 양도소득과세표준 신고를 하면서 제출한 2005. 5. 20.자 부동산매매계약서(을 제9호증)에는 이 사건 부동산의 매매대금이 000원으로 기재되어 있는 점，㉢ 원고도 이 사건 부동산 취득 당시 위 부동산의 과세표준을 000원으로 하여 등록세를 신고・납부한 점，㉣ 위 인증서가 원고에 대한 세무조사 도중인 2009. 9. 11. 작성된 점 등에 비추어 위 인증서에 첨부된 부동산매매계약서의 기재내용을 그대로 믿기는 어렵다.

③ On January 9, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 000,000 from the instant real estate as security, and paid KRW 000 to KimF, and on April 20, 2009, the Plaintiff did not submit objective documentary evidence (financial transaction details, copies of passbook, receipts, etc.).

④ 원고는 김FF이 후소유자인 박DD 등으로부터 매매대금 중 000원을 직접 지급받았으므로 위 지급액도 이 사건 부동산의 취득가액에 포함되어야 한다고 주장한다. 그러나 ㉠ 원고는 박DD 등에게 이 사건 부동산을 매도하면서 계약금 및 중도금을 따로 정하지 아니한 채 매매대금(000원) 전액을 2009. 7. 21.까지 지급받기로 약정하였는바， 이러한 상황에서 박DD 등이 계약당사자도 아닌 김FF에게 위 매매대금 중 일부를 지급하였다는 것은 경험칙상 납득하기 어려운 점，㉡ 원고가 박DD 등이 김BB에게 위 000원을 실제로 지급하였다는 점에 관한 객관적인 증빙자료 (금융거래내역， 통장사본， 영수증 등)를 제출하지 못하고 있는 점 등에 비추어 원고의 위 주장은 믿기 어렵다.

⑤ According to the evidence No. 3 (certificate of deposits without passbook) and the plaintiff's June 20, 2005.

김FF의 예금계좌로 000원을 무통장 입금한 사실은 인정된다. 그러나 ㉠ 김FF은 원고로부터 위 돈을 지급받게 된 경위에 관하여 세무공무원에게 "위 돈은 이 사건 부동산의 매매대금이 아니라 원고로부터 차용한 금원으로， 이후 전부 상환하였으며 원고 의 요구로 2005년 8월경 위 차용금채무에 대한 공증까지 마쳤다 고 진술한 점，㉡ 김 BB은 위 돈을 지급받은 후 원고에게 2006. 6. 30. 000원， 2008. 6. 30. 000원， 2008. 8. 21. 000원 합계 000원을 송금한 점，㉢ 위 확인증 상단에는 김BB이 차용금채무에 대한 공증일이라고 주장하는 날짜인 2005. 8. 20.이 수기로 기재되어 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면， 위 돈이 이 사건 부동산의 매매대금으로 지급되었다고 보기는 어렵다.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition, which corrected the Plaintiff’s increase in the relevant transfer income tax, is lawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s real acquisition value of the instant real estate was KRW 000.

3. Conclusion

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