Cho High Court Decision 201Do599 ( December 20, 2011)

The disposition that recognized the purchase price as acquisition price under the approval agreement is legitimate.

In light of all the circumstances, such as the failure to submit evidential data on the disbursement of real estate purchase price, the other individually assessed individual land price and the increase rate of real estate prices, it is difficult to recognize that the approval seal contract was not actually prepared, and the disposition recognizing the purchase price as the acquisition price under

2012Gudan6738 Disposition of revoking capital gains tax

KimA

The head of Yangcheon Tax Office

November 7, 2012

January 9, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of KRW 000 on August 17, 201 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 7, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired and owned a building of 000 O00 291.4 m2 and its 5 m2 above ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and transferred the instant real estate on August 26, 2009.

B. The Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer income tax that reverts to year 2009 by applying the transfer value of the instant real estate as KRW 000, and the acquisition value as KRW 000 (converted value).

C. However, on August 17, 2011, the Defendant: (a) considered the Plaintiff as well as the acquisition value of the instant real estate as KRW 000, which is the amount under the seal of approval agreement; and (b) determined and notified the increase in capital gains tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Based on Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, and 4 through 6, and Eul l through 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, the former owner of the instant real estate, purchased the instant real estate at KRW 000, and the sales price under the seal of approval agreement, which was written by lowering the amount for convenience, is not a real sales price, and in the case of the Plaintiff, the acquisition price should be the conversion price. Therefore, the instant disposition otherwise reported is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate from the EE on November 7, 2002.

(2) On the other hand, the seal of approval on the instant real estate is indicated as the buyer, the seller’s heartE, and the sales price at KRW 00.

(3) On August 26, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to KRW 000.

[Reasons for Recognition] The above evidence, part of the witness E-E testimony, and the whole purport of the pleading

C. Determination

Unless there are special circumstances, the seal of approval signed by the parties to the transaction and signed by the Mayor, the head of the Gun, etc. shall be presumed to have been prepared in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, and the fact that the seal of approval has not been duly prepared (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2353, Apr. 9, 193). In this case, it is insufficient for the plaintiff to reverse the presumption that the evidence and witness submitted by the plaintiff alone are not genuinely prepared, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, in light of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the fact that the plaintiff spent at least 00 won for the purchase of the real estate of this case, and that the plaintiff did not submit documentary evidence, and that there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disposition that calculated the transfer margin by deeming the acquisition value of the instant real estate as the amount under the above approval seal contract is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.