The burden of proof of acquisition value shall be applied to a person liable for tax payment, and where the acquisition value is unclear, the conversion acquisition value shall be legitimate.

The burden of proving the acquisition value of the building of this case is against the Plaintiff, and there is no data on transaction example or appraisal value, and the Defendant calculated the acquisition value of the building of this case by applying the conversion value, and the disposition to which the conversion value is applied is not unlawful.

Article 94 of the Income Tax Act

2014Guhap5426 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

KimA

BB Director of the Tax Office

on October 28, 2015

on 16, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

피고가 2014. 5. 19. 원고에 대하여 한 2013년 귀속 양도소득세 QQ,QQQ,QQQ원의 부과처분을 취소한다.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s Dong GCC on June 20, 2001 X-dong 1365-2 large 347 square meters (e.g., X-dong 1365-2)

H) After purchasing ‘the instant land’ in Q billion won, each registration of ownership transfer for one-half shares of the instant land was completed.

B. On September 26, 2001, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit on September 26, 2001, 7th floor buildings on the instant land (hereinafter “the instant building”).

On August 1, 2002, the building was newly constructed and approved for use on August 1, 2002, and on August 9, 2002, the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the plaintiff as to the building of this case was completed.

C. On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff and KimCC: (a) the instant land and buildings were sold to D 26.

D. The sale of the instant land and buildings at KRW 00,00,000, and DD sold the same date.

The registration of ownership transfer has been completed.

D. On June 30, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the transfer income tax following the transfer of the instant land and building to the Defendant.

예정신고를 하면서 이 사건 토지의 취득가액을 실지거래가액 QQQ,QQQ,QQQ원으로, 이 사건 건물의 취득가액을 실지거래가액 Q,QQQ,QQQ,QQQ원으로 각 산정하여, 이에 따른 양도소득세로 QQQ,QQQ,QQQ원을 신고하였다.

마. 피고는 원고가 이 사건 건물의 실지거래가액이 Q,QQQ,QQQ,QQQ원이라는 점에 관한 구체적인 증빙서류를 제출하지 못하였고 원고가 지출하였다고 주장하는 대금의 지급이 불분명하다는 이유로 이 사건 건물의 취득가액을 실지거래가액이 아닌 환산취득가액인 Q,QQQ,QQQ,QQQ원으로 계산한 후, 2014. 5. 19. 원고에게 2013년도 귀속 양도소득세 QQ,QQQ,QQQ원을 부과하는 처분(이하 '이 사건 처분'이라고 한다)을 하였다.

F. On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a petition for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal, but filed a petition for adjudication;

The Tax Tribunal dismissed the decision on September 19, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2

Statement, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In making the preliminary return of transfer income tax on the building of this case, the acquisition value thereof is actually occupied.

래가액인 Q,QQQ,QQQ,QQQ원으로 신고하면서, 아래와 같이 이 사건 건물 신축비용에 관하여 소명을 하였음에도 불구하고 이를 필요경비로 인정하지 않은 채 환산취득가액을 기준으로 양도소득세를 부과한 피고의 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

2) Where the actual transaction value cannot be confirmed at the time of acquisition, the acquisition value shall be calculated.

Although business example, appraisal value, conversion value, and standard market value are applied in sequence, the building in this case

transaction example of the building of this case on the ground that the actual transaction value cannot be recognized; or

Determination of the acquisition value by the conversion value without applying the appraisal value is illegal.

3) 원고는 이 사건 건물 취득 당시 취득세 및 농특세 합계 QQ,QQQ,QQQ원, 이 사건

건물 내 신축된 유흥주점 부분의 취득세 및 농특세 합계 QQ,QQQ,QQQ원, 이 사건 건물 전체의 등록세와 지방교육세, 농특세 합계 Q,QQQ,QQQ원을 납부하였고, 법무사 비용으로 QQ,QQQ원을 지급하였으므로, 위 금액 합계 QQ,QQQ,QQQ원도 이 사건 건물의 취득가액에 포함되어야 함에도 이를 반영하지 않은 것은 위법하다.

4) The transfer income tax at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant building is the former Income Tax Act ( December 31, 2001).

Article 96(1) of the Act was amended by Act No. 6557, and Article 96(1) of the Act was the principle of assessment of the standard market price, and only in exceptional cases, the transfer income tax should be imposed based on the actual transaction price. Thus, the Plaintiff neglected to keep evidential documents on the acquisition value of the building of this case. However, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case was unlawful in violation of the principle of protection of trust by imposing only liability for the Plaintiff, which was modified due to an unexpected amendment of the Act, and failed to submit evidentiary documents.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Determination

1) Whether the actual transaction price of the instant building can be confirmed

A) The burden of proof of the tax base, which is the basis of taxation, is the tax authority, and the tax base is the burden of proof of revenue and necessary expenses, as it deducts necessary expenses from revenue. However, considering that the necessary expenses are favorable to the taxpayer and most of the facts generating the necessary expenses are within the area under the control of the taxpayer and it is easy to prove them, it is consistent with the concept of fairness to recognize the necessity of proof for the taxpayer by allowing presumption of non-existence as to the necessary expenses for which the taxpayer does not perform the duty of proof (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1588, Sept. 23, 2004).

On the other hand, Article 97(1) and (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12169, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”) provides that when calculating gains on transfer of a resident, the transfer value shall be deducted from the transfer value, ① acquisition value, ② capital expenses, etc. prescribed by Presidential Decree as necessary expenses, ③ transfer expenses, etc., and ③ if the acquisition value is based on the actual transaction value, the acquisition value shall be calculated by adding the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree such as capital expenses, etc. and the transfer expenses, etc. to the actual transaction value, and Articles 89(1) and 163(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24709, Sep. 9, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act”).

The sum of raw material expenses, labor expenses, freight, loading and unloading expenses, etc. shall be deemed the acquisition cost for assets acquired by the acquisition cost.

The amount corresponding to the cost for acquisition is determined as the actual transaction price.

B) On the other hand, in the case of the instant building, the cost of new construction of the instant building itself would be the acquisition cost, so in order to view the actual transaction value of the instant building as the acquisition value, the cost of new construction of the instant building should be confirmed. However, as examined below, the Plaintiff’s respective construction cost related to the instant building, claiming that the actual transaction value of the instant building is the cost of new construction of the instant building (which refers to capital expenditure, although some of them are considered as capital expenditure, but if the acquisition value is based on the actual transaction value, capital expenditure is deducted as necessary expenses, and thus, the same is also examined together) cannot be deemed as the actual cost of new construction of the instant building, and thus, in the instant building, the actual

C) Determination on each construction cost claimed by the Plaintiff

(1) Regarding EE General Construction Corporation

갑 제5호증, 제7호증의 1 내지 4의 각 기재에 의하면, 원고는 EE종합건설 주식회사(이하 'EE종합건설'이라고 한다)와 사이에 이 사건 건물에 관한 공사대금 Q억 Q,QQQ만 원으로 하는 건축공사도급계약서를 작성하였고, 2002년 제1기부터 2002년 제2기까지 EE종합건설로부터 이 사건 건물에 관한 공사대금으로 Q억 Q,QQQ만 원의 세금계산서를 발급받은 사실, 한편 원고가 EE종합건설로부터 2002. 3. 8.자, 3. 28.자,

5. Recognizing that the Plaintiff was issued a deposit slip dated August 14, 198 and a receipt dated June 17, 2002 and the receipt dated August 14, 2002. However, in addition to the whole purport of the pleadings, the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff did not present financial data to recognize that the money recorded on each date stated in the deposit slip and receipt presented by the Plaintiff was actually paid; (ii)

원고는 이 사건 건물 신축 후 부동산 임대업을 하였는데, 2002년 1기 부가가치세 예정신고 당시 이 사건 건물 신축 비용에 대한 부가가치세 환급신청을 하면서 공급가액을 Q억 Q,QQQ만 원으로 기재한 건축도급공사계약서와 이에 따른 세금계산서만을 제출하였을 뿐(을 제4호증, 제5호증), Q억 Q,QQQ만 원에 대한 공사계약서나 세금계산서를 제출한 바 없는 점 등을 종합하면, 위 임금표와 영수증만으로는 피고가 이 사건 건물을 신축하는 과정에서 실제로 EE종합건설에게 공사대금으로 Q억 Q,QQQ만만 원을 지급하였음을 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

(2) Regarding FF Corporation:

In full view of the evidence No. 9, No. 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings, FF Corporation

대표인 황GG이 2013. 6. 11. 원고에게 공사대금을 Q억 Q,QQQ만만 원으로 하여 이 사건 건물의 인테리어 공사를 하였음을 인정하는 내용의 확인서(갑 제9호증)를 작성해 준 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 그러나 위 인정근거에 다음과 같은 사정 즉 ① 위 확인서는 이 사건 건물이 신축된 후 10년이 더 지난 후에야 작성된 것이고, 황GG의 남편으로서 FF공사를 운영하는 정HH는 '위 확인서를 작성함에 있어 공사대금은 원고가 불러준 대로 작성하였다'라고 진술하고 있는 점, ② 원고가 위 황GG에게 실제로 공사대금 Q억 Q,QQQ만 원을 지급하였다면 위 공사대금에 대한 부가가치세 환급을 신청하였을 것이나, 그러한 신청을 하지 않은 점, ③ 위 황GG 역시 이 사건 건물 인테리어공사대금에 대한 부가가치세 매출신고를 하지 않은 점 등을 종합하면, 위 확인서만으로는 이 사건 건물을 신축할 당시 원고가 황GG에게 인테리어공사대금으로 Q억 Q,QQQ만 원을 실제로 지급하였음을 인정하기 어렵고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

(3) With respect to II Specialized Corporation

According to the evidence No. 10 No. 10, the Song JJ, the representative of the II Full-time Co., Ltd., June 2013

3. 원고에게 이 사건 건물의 전기공사비용으로 Q,QQQ만 원을 지급받았다는 내용의 확인서를 작성해 준 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 한편 을 제7호증의 기재에 의하면, 송JJ은 이 사건 건물이 신축된 지 10여년이 지난 2013. 6. 3.에서야 원고의 부탁으로 위 확인서를 작성해 주었는데, 그 내용 역시 당시 기억을 더듬어 공사대금을 대략 Q,QQQ만원으로 기재한 것이지 정확한 금액은 모른다고 진술하고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 위 확인서만으로는 실제로 원고가 II전설 주식회사에게 Q,QQQ만 원을 지급하였음을 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

(4) The relation between HaK and LLririju

According to the statements in Gap evidence 11, e-te comprehensive case in the name of e-M, the representative of HaK.

설에 대한 QQQ만 원의 2002. 4. 16.자 입금표가, 원고에 대한 QQQ만 원의 2002. 8. 7.자 입금표가 각 작성된 사실, 또한 LL유리상사 대표 김NN 명의로 원고에 대한 QQQ만 원의 2002. 8. 10.자 입금표가 각 작성된 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 그러나 위 인정근거에 다음과 같은 사정 즉, 위 각 일자 입금표 작성 당시 실제로 원고가 위 각 업체로 돈을 지급하였음을 인정할 만한 금융자료가 없는 점, 위 각 공사대금과 관련하여 위 업체들은 물론 원고도 부가가치세 신고를 하지 않은 점, 더욱이 서MM 명의로 작성된 입금표 중 하나인 2002. 4. 16.자 입금표는 원고에게 작성해 준 것이 아니라 EE종합건설에게 작성해 준 것으로서 그 명의자조차도 달리하고 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 위 입금표만으로는 원고가 위 각 업체에게 에어컨 공사 및 유리공사 등에 대한 공사대금을 실제로 지급하였음을 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

(5) Obrid-related

Article 97 (1) 2 of the former Income Tax Act provides for the first class of necessary expenses.

Article 163 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act that is determined by the Presidential Decree by capital expenditure, etc.

capital expenditures computed by applying mutatis mutandis Article 67(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act as referred to in subparagraphs 1 and 3; or

‘Expenses incurred for the alteration, improvement or convenience of the transfer assets'; and

Article 67 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1983, Feb. 1, 201)

extended the lifespan of depreciation assets or the actual increase of the value of the depreciation assets;

In the end, capital expenditures, etc. as a kind of necessary expenses are defined as "repair cost disbursed".

of the transferred assets in order to be applicable, the service life of the transferred assets shall be extended or the actual value thereof shall be increased.

expenses paid for repair or for the alteration, improvement or convenience of use corresponding to the expenses.

section 23.

However, the signboard manufacturing costs alleged by the Plaintiff as capital expenditures as above are extended the service life of a building, realizing the value of a building, or changing the purpose of use, or improving it;

the cost of maintaining the original function of the building rather than the cost paid for the convenience of use;

Since it constitutes a beneficial expenditure of a building, it cannot be viewed as included in necessary expenses.

설령 그렇지 않다고 하더라도 갑 제12호증의 기재에 의하면 OO애드의 대표 박PP이 2013. 6. 7. 원고에게 이 사건 건물 옥내외간판 일체를 Q,QQQ만 원에 제작하여 납품한 사실이 있다는 내용의 확인서를 작성해 준 사실은 인정할 수 있으나, 위 확인서가 이 사건 건물 신축 후 10여년이 지난 이후에나 작성된 것이고, 그 당시 옥내 외간판 대금을 지급하였음을 인정할 만한 금융자료를 제시하지 못하고 있는 사정을 고려하면, 원고가 위 공사대금을 실제로 지급하였음을 인정하기 어렵다.

2) Whether the application of conversion acquisition value is unlawful

Article 114 (7) of the former Income Tax Act can confirm the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition of assets.

Where there is no transaction example, appraisal value or conversion price prescribed by Presidential Decree, the acquisition value shall be determined.

The amount (the actual transaction price, the sale price, or the appraisal price) shall be refunded in accordance with the method prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Determination or correction may be made after an estimated investigation according to the standard market price, etc. or the standard market price, etc.

The former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act Article 114 of the former Income Tax Act Article 176-2(3)

(1) Where acquisition value is estimated, determined or corrected pursuant to paragraph (7), three months before and after the date of acquisition, respectively.

(2) if there is a transaction example of assets which are identical or similar to the relevant assets, such case;

(2) Two or more appraisal of the relevant assets within three months before and after the date of acquisition;

Where there is appraisal value deemed to be reliable, which is appraised by the evaluation corporation;

(3) Conversion into acquisition value converted under the provisions of paragraph (2).

(4) The standard market price is based on the value calculated by applying the method in sequence.

However, there is no data on transaction example or appraisal value in the case of the building of this case, and the defendant cannot calculate the acquisition value of the building of this case by applying the conversion value.

In calculating the acquisition value of the building of this case, the application of the conversion price is unlawful.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3) Whether expenses omitted, such as acquisition tax, are recognized as necessary expenses

According to Article 97 (2) of the former Income Tax Act and Article 163 (3) and (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act:

If the acquisition value of assets is based on the actual transaction value, the necessary expenses that can be deducted from the calculation of gains on transfer may include the capital expenditure of the assets or the cost of lawsuit directly required for securing ownership. However, in cases where the acquisition value is calculated based on the conversion value as the actual transaction value cannot be confirmed at the time of acquisition of assets, necessary expenses other than the acquisition value can only be recognized as 3% (3/100) of the standard market value of real estate at the time of acquisition, i.e.

As seen earlier, the conversion price cannot be confirmed as the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition.

In calculating the acquisition value of the building of this case, gains on transfer of the building of this case

Necessary expenses other than the acquisition value that may be deducted in the calculation process shall be the acquisition price of the building of this case.

Since it is only an estimated deduction calculated based on the market price of the Si, this case as alleged by the plaintiff.

It is necessary to consider whether necessary expenses, such as acquisition tax, etc., for a building are actually paid.

shall not be entitled to any deduction as necessary expenses.

4) Whether the principle of protection of trust is violated

In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority's act in tax law relations, first, the tax authority must state a public opinion that is the object of taxpayer trust, second, the taxpayer should not be responsible to the taxpayer when the taxpayer trusted that the tax authority's expression of opinion is justifiable, third, the taxpayer should act in trust and what is the taxpayer's interest. Fourth, the tax authority's disposition against the above expression of opinion should lead to the result of infringing the taxpayer's interest by making the tax authority's disposition against the above expression of opinion. On the other hand, the provision content and administrative rule itself does not constitute the public opinion of the tax authority (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du403, Sept. 5, 2003). Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the disposition of this case is an unlawful disposition against the principle of trust and protection.

3. Conclusion

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

(c)