Daejeon District Court-2015-Gu Group-72 (Law No. 26, 2017)

Application of acquisition price at the time of transfer of real estate acquired by inheritance is appropriate

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to view that “the price fluctuations in the buildings and relevant land in the instant case between the commencement date of the instant contract and the day of the instant sales contract,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Article 97 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act; Article 163 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; Article 60 (1), 60 (3), and 61 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Daejeon High Court-2017-Nu-13729 Revocation of the imposition disposition of capital gains tax;

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

December 14, 2017

. 25, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The transfer income tax for the year 2013 that the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on February 5, 2016 shall revert to the Plaintiff.

34,212,610 won exceeding 7,159,471 won shall be revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 27,053,139.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the dismissal of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

“On June 13, 2012, 201, hereinafter referred to as “the date commencing the inheritance of this case”)” on the 4th side of the second place is added to “the date commencing the inheritance of this case.”

○ The second and fifth places of “(the execution of a sales contract on July 23, 2013)” are “(the execution of a sales contract on July 23, 2013; hereinafter “the date of the instant sales contract”)”.

○ 5.0,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as “the sales price of this case”) in Part 5 of Part 2, each addition to the following "5.60,000" (hereinafter referred to as “the sales price of this case”) and "the transfer" (hereinafter referred to as “the sale of this case”).

In addition, "the other building of this case" in Part 9 of the second place is added to "the other building of this case" (hereinafter referred to as "the other building of this case") and "the other building of this case".

○ The following is added to the third place below, and the third place of action 4(b) shall be referred to as “judgment.”

(b) the relevant regulations;

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "Related Provisions".

○ 4. The following shall be added under title 19 of the title:

3) As to this, under the proviso of Article 49(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the Plaintiff may include the value of the relevant sale, etc. in any of the following values, subject to consultation with the Evaluation Deliberative Committee under Article 56-2(1), if it is deemed that there are no special circumstances as to price fluctuation in light of the management status of the issuing company during the period from the evaluation date to the date falling under any subparagraph of paragraph (2), the passage of time, changes in surrounding environment, etc. even if the sale, etc. was made during the period

The proviso of this case provides that "the date of the sales contract of this case is about one year and one month from the commencement date of the inheritance of this case, while there is no price fluctuation between the other buildings of this case and the land annexed thereto, and therefore, the part corresponding to the price of the other buildings of this case and the land annexed thereto should be viewed as the acquisition value of the other buildings of this case and the land annexed thereto."

In general, the burden of proof regarding the facts requiring taxation in a tax suit must be borne by the imposing authority. However, if it is revealed that the facts alleged in the facts requiring taxation in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit are proved, it cannot be readily concluded that the other party is an illegal disposition that fails to meet the requirement for taxation unless the other party proves that the facts at issue are not eligible for application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu2429, Oct. 24, 19

In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, the Defendant recognized the acquisition value of the transfer income tax as of the commencement date of the instant real estate under Article 97 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act, Article 163 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 60 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. However, as it is difficult to compute the market value as of the commencement date of the instant inheritance, the Plaintiff recognized the standard market value of the instant real estate under Articles 60 (3) and 61 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as the acquisition value and notified the Plaintiff of the additional transfer income tax. Meanwhile, when the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax on the instant real estate, the acquisition value was reported as the standard market value according to the supplementary valuation method. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no change in the price of the instant building and land annexed to the instant building from the commencement date of the instant sales contract to the date of the instant sales contract, and there is no reason to acknowledge that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s lack of evidence.

A) First, for the Plaintiff’s assertion to be reasonable, the sale price of the instant building and its appurtenant land should be specified in the sale of the instant building (this case’s other building and its appurtenant land are necessarily required in calculating gains on transfer for the purpose of calculating gains on transfer of the building and its appurtenant land). However, the instant real estate includes one building on one parcel of land, and there exists a total certificate of one registered matters for each parcel of land and building. The instant building consists of 1, 2 and 3 and 4 commercial buildings (the instant other building). Meanwhile, the sale price of a specific object is the subjective value of the seller and the purchaser and the objective value of the relevant object.

In light of all of the values, the sales price of the instant real estate was determined at the final price by the assent of all, and the Plaintiff and the purchaser of the instant building was determined at KRW 560,00,000, not by distinguishing the sales price from the other parts of the instant building and the other parts of the instant building. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the sales price of the instant building and the relevant annexed land cannot be determined by separately removing the sales price from the sales price of the instant building and the relevant annexed land (the Plaintiff used the total floor area, the area of the land, the standard market price, etc. of the instant building).

The housing portion, the land annexed thereto, the instant other building parts, and the land annexed thereto are classified by their own method. However, this is merely a discretionary classification that does not take into account the subjective value between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, bB, and cc, and it is inappropriate to regard some of them as the sales value of the instant other buildings and the relevant land.

B) While the instant building consists of only the housing and the instant other parts of the building, the individual housing price of the housing portion has increased from 176,000,000 to 194,000,000 won in 2013 (10.2% in 2013). In light of the empirical rule, it is difficult to readily conclude that there was no change in the price of the instant other building and the relevant land annexed to the instant building from the date of commencing the instant inheritance to the date of the instant sales contract, in light of the fact that it is reasonable to deem that the price of the instant building and the relevant land annexed to the building has increased together due to the increase in the overall value of the building when the housing and the commercial building are mixed in one building.

2. 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 conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.