Seoul Administrative Court 2013Gudan25408 ( October 30, 2014)

2013west 2837 ( November 15, 2013)

It is reasonable to view that the heir’s share in land is acquired on the ground of the renunciation of inheritance, and the appraised value under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is the acquisition value.

In full view of the fact that part of the share in the issue land is purchased from other inheritors, and that there is no evidence to prove it, it is difficult to accept the claim that the claimant's acquisition value should be converted into the value of conversion.

2014Nu5129 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

KimA

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

August 26, 2014

September 24, 2014

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

In the first place, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 166,508,893 on the Plaintiff on June 1, 2013.

A. Preliminaryly, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on June 1, 2013.

The part exceeding 74,305,163 won shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of the decision under which the plaintiff emphasizes in particular or re-invened in this court, and therefore, the reasoning of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The primary claim(s)

The Plaintiff, while paying a price to Nonparty 1 and acquiring the instant shares at a cost, cannot verify the amount paid at present. Therefore, the converted value under Article 114(7) of the Income Tax Act and Article 176-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be deemed the acquisition value.

2) Claim as to the preliminary claim

On May 16, 1994, the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares in accordance with the agreement on the division of the inherited property with respect to the instant real estate among the inheritors. Thus, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have succeeded to the instant shares from the deceased Kimbb, and the acquisition value thereof should be calculated.

B. Determination

1) Determination as to the primary claim

In full view of the following circumstances, i.e., the overall purport of the arguments adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance cited by this judgment, i.e., (i) the heir did not report the transfer income tax, and there are no other data to deem that the Plaintiff paid the purchase price of the instant real estate to the heir. (ii) The Plaintiff prepared and presented a false receipt (No. (No. (No. 3) for the acquisition of the instant real estate at the time of the Defendant’s on-site investigation; and (iii) the Plaintiff continued financial transactions with the heir before or after the completion of the registration of the Plaintiff’s sole name on the instant real estate, even though the Plaintiff failed to submit financial data that had been paid to the Nonparty’s heir for the purchase price of the instant real estate, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate from the Nonparty’s heir, even if all evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to this court was collected

2) Determination on the assertion on the conjunctive claim

In full view of the evidence adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited in this judgment, the following facts are revealed to the effect that: (a) the Plaintiff did not present any evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement on the division of the inherited property regarding the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty’s heir; (b) the Plaintiff delegated the registration to a certified judicial scrivener without knowing the meaning of the renunciation of shares; and (c) the registration was not completed due to the agreement on the division of inherited property; (d) however, if the Plaintiff explained the fact that there was an agreement on the division of inherited property with the Nonparty’s heir, a certified judicial scrivener, who is an expert in the registration affairs, was an expert in the registration affairs, to the effect that the Plaintiff filed an application for registration with the certified judicial scrivener with such content; and (e) the Plaintiff appears to have failed to explain that the waiver of shares was registered through the agreement on division of inherited property; and (e) the fact that the registration on the renunciation of shares was made in the order as of the inheritance registration on the same date, there is no evidence to support otherwise.

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 in its conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.