Seoul Administrative Court 2010Gudan17734 ( December 22, 2010)

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du0792 (Law No. 106.01)

Since the actual transaction price of acquisition is confirmed, acquisition price cannot be viewed as the actual transaction price under the seal of approval contract.

Although there is no evidence to acknowledge the payment of building repair cost and real estate brokerage fee, it is illegal that the acquisition price is based on the actual transaction price because the acquisition price is recognized as the actual transaction price.

2011Nu5546 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

Head of Eastern Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Gudan17734 decided December 22, 2010

August 24, 2011

November 2, 2011

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Plaintiff that orders the revocation below shall be revoked. The part of the Defendant’s disposition that exceeds KRW 98,857,504 in the disposition of capital gains tax for the year 2008 and KRW 114,890 in 2009 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The remaining appeal filed by the Plaintiff is dismissed.

3. 85% of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 114, 890, and 630 won to the plaintiff on December 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance

The judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, except where the "building on the ground", which is the second half of the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, until the date of the disposition of this case and whether the disposition of this case is legitimate. The plaintiff's main part and the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from the fourth to the third half of the judgment of the court of first instance) are "264 square meters of a building on the ground."

A. Determination as to the assertion of expenses for building repair and construction

Although the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff spent 180,000,000 won for the repair cost of the building, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 6, 13, and 14 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion that real estate brokerage fees are 42,00,000,000 won

In addition to the real estate brokerage commission 29,000,000, and 000, the Plaintiff claimed that the sum of the real estate brokerage commission 42,000,000, and the real estate brokerage commission 13,000 should be recognized as the necessary expense, since the Plaintiff added the real estate brokerage commission 29,00,000, and the real estate brokerage commission 29,000,000 as the necessary expense. However, it is insufficient to find that the Plaintiff paid the additional KRW 13,00,000 as the real estate brokerage commission in addition to the real estate brokerage commission 29,000,000,

C. Determination as to the assertion of acquisition value of the instant acquired real estate

In full view of the evidence Nos. 2 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 15, and testimony made by this court witness KimCC, the plaintiff can be acknowledged that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case in KRW 200,000,000 around March 28, 2002. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is with merit.

(d) Justifiable tax amount.

If the transfer income tax for the year 2008 is to be calculated again by recognizing the actual transaction price of the acquired real estate in this case as 200,000,000 won, it shall be 98,857,504 won as stated in the separate sheet. As shown in the calculation basis of ‘justifiable tax amount’, it shall be 4,780,753 won, and it shall be calculated as 3,691,619 won recognized at the time of the disposition in this case (the additional tax for the failure of payment at the time of the disposition in this case was calculated insufficiently).

3. Conclusion

The portion of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which exceeds the reasonable amount of tax calculated as above, shall be revoked, and the part exceeding the reasonable amount of tax in the disposition of this case shall be revoked. The remaining appeal by the