early 2012 Middle 2436 ( February 26, 2012)

Since the acquisition value of real estate received by payment in kind is unclear, the acquisition value shall be determined by converting it, and the necessary expenses shall be determined by the estimated deduction

Since the acquisition price of the real estate acquired through payment in kind is determined by converting the acquisition price of the real estate acquired through payment in kind, and accordingly there is no error of disposal after deducting only the estimated expenses deduction from the estimated expenses.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act / Article 97 of the Income Tax Act

2013Gudan1137 Revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

Song AA

port of origin

September 6, 2013

October 4, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On May 10, 2012, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition by the OOOO of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2010 against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

"O, prior to the division, OO, 298-5 348 m2 (29-5 m33 m2, the same on November 7, 2008) was divided into 298-18 m2, 315 m2, and prior to the division, 298-18 m2, 298-8 m2, and 65/100 m2, respectively on 298-8 m2, 418 m2, and 766.3 m2, on 296 m2, 196 m2, the Plaintiff purchased the instant m2, 200 m2, 200 m2, 300 m2, 1996 m2, 300 m2, 2,000 m2, 2,000 m3,00 m2,00.

○ The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 15, 2012, but the said appeal was dismissed on September 26, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 3, 7, 8, Eul evidence 9-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff and her husband strong-to-B had a loan claim against OEB. However, on December 21, 1996, the Plaintiff paid the instant real estate in lieu of performing the obligation of OE members. On the same day, OE-to-8 large scale 418 square meters out of the site of the instant building in lieu of performing the obligation of OOE members. The Plaintiff and her husband made payment in lieu of performing the obligation of 200 square meters. Since the real acquisition value of the instant real estate can be clearly recognized as OE-to-be KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The actual acquisition value of the real estate of this case, which is the basis for the calculation of transfer margin, refers to the value objectively recognized by the sales contract or other documentary evidence, rather than the general market price that reflects the objective exchange value, and the actual transaction price is the actual transaction price itself or at the time of the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu6629, Feb. 9, 199; 2006Du7171, Apr. 26, 2007); and on the other hand, the real estate price is transferred at the time of providing other benefits in reality instead of the original obligation, and the payment is made at the time of the transfer of the asset. Thus, if the transfer of the real estate is made by the payment in kind, the original debt amount shall be deemed the actual acquisition value of the asset in question, but when the payment in kind is made by the person who claims the payment in kind, the actual obligation amount shall be proved as to whether the actual obligation amount is the value of the asset in question.

" 이 사건에 관하여 살피건대, 갑 2호증의 기재에 의하면, 원고와 송BB 사이에 작성된 매매계약서에 이 사건 부동산의 매매대금이 OOOO원으로 기재되어 있는 사실은 인정되나, 다른 한편 갑 1, 2호증, 을 2호증, 을 4호증의 1, 을 7, 8호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ○ 원고가 그 주장과 같이 송BB으로부터 이 사건 부동산을 대물변제 받았다면 그에 의하여 소멸된 원래 채권액이 이 사건 부동산의 실지거래가액이라고 보아야 할 것인데, 원고 부부가 송BB에게 대여하였다는 총 OOOO원의 채권액에 관하여는 그 액수가 매우 큰데도 원고가 구체적인 대여시기와 금액을 밝힌 바 없고, 그 존재를 확인할 수 있는 증빙서류나 금융자료 등 객관적 자료도 전혀 제출된 바 없는 점, ○ 송BB은 원고의 친동생으로서, 원고가 처음에 양도소득세를 신고할 때에 원고와 송BB 사이에 작성된 1996. 12. 1.자 매매계약서(을 4호증의 1)를 제출하였으나, 그 계약서에 기재된EE법무사사무소'의 사업자등록일이 2006. 12. 1.로 밝혀지는 바람에 위 매매계약서가 허위로 판명되자, 그 후 원고가 송BB이 보관중이던 실제 매매계약서의 사본이라고 하면서 갑 2호증을 제출하였으나, 그 계약서의 원본이 제출된 바 없으며, 계약서상 원고가 주장하는 대물변제계약에 관한 사항도 기재되어 있지 않는 등 그 제출경위나 내용 모두 석연치 아니한 점 등에 비추어 보면, ▷ 이 사건은 매매계약서 등 증빙서류에 의하여 실지취득가액을 인정 또는 확인할 수 없는 경우에 해당한다고 보아야 할 것이고, 이 사건 부동산에 관한 매매사례가액이나 감정가액도 존재하지 아니하므로, 피고가 같은 이유로 관계 법령의 규정에 따라 이 사건 부동산의 취득가액을 환산가액으로 계산하여 양도소득세를 부과한 것은 적법하다. 따라서 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.", (2) 필요경비 공제 주장에 대하여

Article 97(3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10408, Dec. 27, 2010) and Article 163(3)3 and (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23588, Feb. 2, 2012) provide that where the acquisition value of assets is based on the actual transaction value, necessary expenses that may be deducted in calculating gains from transfer may be included in the calculation of gains from transfer as capital expenses. However, where the acquisition value is calculated based on the conversion value because it cannot be confirmed at the time of acquisition of assets, necessary expenses other than the acquisition value can be recognized only by the estimated deduction amount, namely, the amount equivalent to 3% of the standard market value of real estate at the time of acquisition.

" 증빙서류나 금융자료 등 객관적 자료도 전혀 제출된 바 없는 점, ○ 송BB은 원고의 친동생으로서, 원고가 처음에 양도소득세를 신고할 때에 원고와 송BB 사이에 작성된 1996. 12. 1.자 매매계약서(을 4호증의 1)를 제출하였으나, 그 계약서에 기재된EE법무사사무소'의 사업자등록일이 2006. 12. 1.로 밝혀지는 바람에 위 매매계약서가 허위로 판명되자, 그 후 원고가 송BB이 보관중이던 실제 매매계약서의 사본이라고 하면서 갑 2호증을 제출하였으나, 그 계약서의 원본이 제출된 바 없으며, 계약서상 원고가 주장하는 대물변제계약에 관한 사항도 기재되어 있지 않는 등 그 제출경위나 내용 모두 석연치 아니한 점 등에 비추어 보면, ▷ 이 사건은 매매계약서 등 증빙서류에 의하여 실지취득가액을 인정 또는 확인할 수 없는 경우에 해당한다고 보아야 할 것이고, 이 사건 부동산에 관한 매매사례가액이나 감정가액도 존재하지 아니하므로, 피고가 같은 이유로 관계 법령의 규정에 따라 이 사건 부동산의 취득가액을 환산가액으로 계산하여 양도소득세를 부과한 것은 적법하다. 따라서 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.", (2) 필요경비 공제 주장에 대하여

Article 97(3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10408, Dec. 27, 2010) and Article 163(3)3 and (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23588, Feb. 2, 2012) provide that where the acquisition value of assets is based on the actual transaction value, necessary expenses that may be deducted in calculating gains from transfer may be included in the calculation of gains from transfer as capital expenses. However, where the acquisition value is calculated based on the conversion value because it cannot be confirmed at the time of acquisition of assets, necessary expenses other than the acquisition value can be recognized only by the estimated deduction amount, namely, the amount equivalent to 3% of the standard market value of real estate at the time of acquisition.

Accordingly, the real estate in this case is a case where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of its acquisition, and the acquisition price shall be calculated based on the conversion price. Thus, the necessary expenses other than the acquisition price that can be deducted in calculating the transfer margin of the real estate in this case are limited to the estimated amount calculated based on the standard market price at the time of the acquisition of the real estate in this case, and the actual expenses as alleged by the plaintiff cannot be deducted as necessary expenses. Thus, the disposition in this case made by the defendant to the same purport is legitimate, and the above assertion by the plaintiff on different premise is without merit.

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.