Early High Court Decision 2008J 4098 ( October 13, 2009)

Whether the actual transfer value of real estate is long

If all relevant evidence and arguments are examined, the transfer value verified by the tax authority is judged as the actual 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 capital gains tax of KRW 255,188,050 for the Plaintiff on March 13, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2002. 6. 7. 서울 강남구 ★★동 411-19 대지 415.7㎡ 및 그 지상 8층 건물 2,559㎡(이하 '이 사건 각 부동산'이라 한다)를 취득하였다가, 2002. 11. 29. 이 사건 각 부동산을 ☆☆☆ 주식회사(이하 '소외 회사'라 한다)에게 양도한 다음 2003. 6. 12. 피고에게 취득가액을 5,350,000,000원, 양도가액을 5,710,000,000원으로 하여 양도 소득세 34,533,792원을 신고ㆍ납부하였다.

B. On March 13, 2008, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 5,350,000,000 on the ground that the acquisition value of each of the instant real estate was not KRW 5,710,000, and the transfer value was not KRW 5,710,000, but KRW 6,150,000,00, as reported by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's principal

Despite the fact that the transfer value of each of the instant real estate was KRW 5,710,000,000, the instant disposition that deemed the transfer value as KRW 6,150,000 is unlawful.

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 10, 11, and 3, the plaintiff sold each of the real estate of this case to the non-party company on November 29, 2002 in KRW 6,150,00,000, and the non-party company may recognize the fact that the purchase price was fully paid to the plaintiff or his agent Kim J, and the above recognition is insufficient to reverse the conclusion of the above recognition only with the descriptions of Nos. 3, 5, 6, and No. 7-1, 2, and 3, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

Therefore, the instant disposition that deemed the transfer value of each real estate of this case as KRW 6,150,000 is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion 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.