early 2012west0513 (2012.08)

actual transaction value means the actual amount agreed upon for the payment itself or at the time of the transaction;

Since there exists a mutual agreement between the plaintiff and the transferee that the price indicated in the sales contract or tax invoice of each of the above buildings should be considered as the sales price of each of the above buildings, it is reasonable to view it as the actual transaction price of each of the above buildings, and as alleged by the defendant, it cannot be viewed as a case where the value of the land and the building is unclear among the actual transaction price.

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

AAAA

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

March 19, 2013

April 5, 2013

1. On October 7, 201, the Defendant’s imposition of KRW 00 of the value-added tax for the Plaintiff on October 7, 201, and KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first time in 2007, and KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second time in 2008, and KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second time in 2009 and KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second time in 200, respectively, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Summary of the Plaintiff corporation

The plaintiff (mutual name was changed from BB to BB on February 28, 201) is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling, such as oral speech, etc. around September 1961.

(b) Status of real estate transfer;

(1) Each real estate located in the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OOdong;

원고는 2007. 4. 12. 주식회사 CCCC(CCC)코리아에게 ① 서울 금천구 OOO동 0000 소재 근로자 임대아파트 9세대(각 전용면적 35.61㎡)，대지 314，685㎡， 건 물 320.49㎡를 총 000원에，② 같은 동 0000 대 1，678㎡ 토지 및 그 지상 건물 2，485㎡를 총 000원에 각 양도하였다. 위 각 양도를 위한 매매계약서에는 각 대지와 건물 가액이 구분기재되어 있지는 않으나，'특이사항1란에 '건물 부가가치세는 별도로 지급한다'라고 기재되어 있고， 위 양도일에 위 OOO동 00000 건물과 관련하여 공급가액 0000원， 세액 0000원으로 된， 위 OOO동 0000 건물과 관련하여 공급가액 0000원， 세액 0000원으로 된 각 세금계산서가 발행되었다.

(2) Real estate located in Jung-gu Seoul Central District OO

On November 3, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) on November 3, 2008, the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City O2 transferred the land of approximately 000, 112.9 square meters and the land of 618.42 square meters of the above ground to a total of 000 won (excluding value-added tax). The sales contract following the above transfer states the land price of KRW 00, and the building price of KRW 00 and value-added tax of KRW 000.

(3) Real estate located in Incheon;

On November 11, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the land of 000, 000, 528.5 square meters in Jung-gu, Incheon, and 528.5 square meters in total to DD companies, a total of 00,000, and 3,455.95 square meters in total (excluding value-added tax). In a sales contract following the above transfer, the Plaintiff returned the land price of 00, 000, 000, and 000 won in value-added tax.

(4) Real estate located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Odong

On January 8, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred the land of 1,489 square meters in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and its ground 9,881.46 square meters in total to 000 won (excluding value-added tax). The sales contract following the above transfer entered KRW 000 of land price and KRW 000 of building price, and KRW 00 of value-added tax.

C. The Plaintiff reported and paid value-added tax as indicated below on each of the above real estate based on the building price stated in each of the above tax invoices or each sales contract.

D. At the time of the consolidated investigation into a corporation in 2011, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) deemed that the distinction between the value of the land and the building in each of the above real estate is unclear; (b) calculated the value of the building based on the appraisal price; and (c) calculated the value of the building based on the OO real estate and OO real estate based on the standard market price; and (d) notified the Defendant thereof; and (c) on October 7, 201, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing value-added tax on each of the above real estate, including each amount indicated in the item of the notice of value-added tax (including the additional tax) on the following corrective disposition, etc., (including the amount indicated in the item of the notice of value-added tax on each of the above real estate; and (d) imposed value-added tax on each of the above real estate at KRW 00 on 1, 200 and KRW 00 on 2, 200 on 209.

E. On December 23, 2011, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, and the said claim was dismissed on August 3, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 10, and Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(A) Since the OOO-dong 00 building is a national housing subject to an exemption from value-added tax under Article 106(1)4 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the part on which value-added tax (including additional tax) is imposed on the building in the instant disposition on the premise that it is subject to taxation.

(B) The part of the disposition in this case imposing value-added tax (including additional tax) on each of the above buildings is unlawful, since the remaining real estate except OOOdong 000 buildings is determined separately when the plaintiff concludes a sales contract for each of the above real estate, and the value of each building is clearly determined by the sales contract or the tax invoice issued at the time of the sales contract, etc., and it is obvious that the value of the land and the value of the building are not unclear.

(2) The defendant's assertion

(A) OOO-dong 000 buildings are located adjacent to a factory and used as a lodging house of employees, and they do not constitute permanent residential housing, and they cannot be viewed as national housing subject to the exemption of value-added tax.

(B) The Plaintiff calculated the value of the land and buildings in this case, including OOOdong 000 real estate, on the basis of the standard market price, and on the basis of the correct standard market price due to the error in the calculation of the standard market price, the value of the land and buildings was remarkably low compared with the application of the correct standard market price. This is because the Plaintiff voluntarily determined that the value of the land and buildings, based on the standard market price, would be unclear. Furthermore, even where the value of the land and buildings is separately recorded in the sales contract, and where it is not deemed reasonable in light of the size and form of the land and buildings, the degree of usage and utility, and the supply value of the neighboring land and buildings, the value of the building in each sales contract is not deemed reasonable and reasonable, considering the above factors. Accordingly, the disposal in this case is lawful by calculating the value of the land and buildings in proportion to the average market price or the correct standard market price.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The part on the imposition of value-added tax on OOOdong 000

Article 106 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827 of Dec. 31, 2007, hereinafter the same) provides that the supply of the national housing as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be exempted from value-added tax, and Articles 106 (4) and 51-2 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20720 of Feb. 29, 2008) provide that the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20720 of Feb. 29, 2008) provides that the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008) provides that the term "house" referred to in subparagraph 1 means the whole or part of the building constructed in a structure that allows a household to carry on an independent residential life for a long time, and the term "national housing" referred to in subparagraph 2 provides that the area of the national housing is less than one household.

However, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the above evidence, the OOO-dong 000 building can be recognized that it is a building with a structure that enables workers to live a residential life as an employee rental apartment, so this is identical to the above, and 35.61 square meters per household with the exclusive area of 85 square meters or less, and the unit area of 35.61 square meters or less per household with the exclusive area of 85 square meters or less, and ultimately meets all the requirements of l national housing exempt from value added tax under Article 106(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Therefore, since OO-dong 00 building is subject to value added tax exemption under Article 106(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the part on which value added tax (including additional tax) is imposed on

(2) The portion on which the value-added tax is imposed on the buildings other than the OO-dong 333-24 buildings

According to the above evidence, the Plaintiff determined the value of the land and buildings of each of the instant real estate including OOOdong 333-24 on the basis of the standard market price in proportion to the standard market price. However, when the standard market price is calculated, the Plaintiff can find the fact that the value of each of the instant real estate is lower than the time when the correct standard market price is applied by erroneously applying the remaining rate, usage index, etc. according to the year of completion of the building. However, even if the Plaintiff determined the value of each of the above real estate based on the standard market price in proportion to the value of the land and buildings, this is not because the Plaintiff mobilized the standard market price to determine the actual market price, i.e., the purchase price

In addition, even if some errors were made in the calculation of the standard market price, the value of the building indicated in the sales contract or tax invoice was different from that of the building calculated according to the correct standard market price, and there was a mutual agreement between the plaintiff and the transferee that the price indicated in the sales contract or tax invoice should be considered as the sales price of each building, and it is reasonable to regard it as the actual transaction price of each building

Furthermore, the actual transaction price is not a general market price that reflects the objective exchange value, but a real price refers to the actual amount agreed for the payment itself or at the time of the transaction, and as alleged by the defendant, "where the value, etc. of land and buildings is not recognized to be reasonable," it cannot be viewed as a case where the value of land and buildings is unclear.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is illegal to impose the value-added tax imposed on each of the above real estate and the penalty tax imposed on each of the above real estate under different premise.

D. Sub-determination

Ultimately, the instant disposition among the value-added tax imposed on the Plaintiff on October 7, 2011 (the part on the OOdong 0000) should be revoked in entirety as the Plaintiff seeks.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.