Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap48176 ( July 22, 2009)

Cho High Court Decision 2008west 1874 (Law No. 25, 2008)

The case in which tax authorities applied for the appraisal of the market price to the court and judged it as the market price.

The case holding that although the transaction value of the comparative apartment cannot be viewed as the market price because the transaction value of the comparative apartment is not the market price because it is difficult to view that it is the transaction value of other property similar to the corresponding property, the appraisal value of the comparative apartment is recognized as the market

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant dismissed the claim for revocation on the portion exceeding KRW 19,384,640, respectively, of the disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 22,798,980 for the year 2006, against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed KimA.

B. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 90% of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), and the remainder by the Defendant respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 22,798,980 on March 1, 2008 against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Selected KimA shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff (appointed party) shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the part of the disposition of KRW 19,384,640 in each of the disposition of KRW 22,798,980 in which the defendant imposed the gift tax of KRW 22,798,980 in 2006 against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party KimA.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that "the disposition of this case is legitimate only for each of the above amounts, since it is calculated" of 7th and 2th of the judgment of the court of first instance. The following is the same as the statement in the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding ex officio judgments and judgments on the plaintiff (appointed party)'s assertion in the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. Ex officio determination

In full view of the purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, and 8, the defendant issued a corrective disposition to reduce the amount of KRW 22,798,980 for the gift tax of KRW 19,384,640 for each of the plaintiff and the designated party KimA in accordance with the purport of the first instance judgment on September 21, 2009, which is pending in the trial. Since the corrective disposition to reduce the amount of KRW 22,798,980 for the gift tax of KRW 22,798,980 for each of the lawsuits in this case, the disposition to reduce the amount of KRW 19,384,640 for the gift tax of KRW 206 for each of the lawsuits in this case is effective to revoke the original disposition to reduce the amount of KRW 22,79,980 for the gift tax of KRW 19,384,640 for each of the disposition to revoke the reduction.

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as the transaction value of the comparative apartment, which served as the basis of the Defendant’s disposition, cannot be seen as the market value of the instant Arabic, the instant disposition should be entirely revoked, and that determination of the lawfulness of the instant disposition based on the appraisal value would be contrary to the separation of powers, the principle of no taxation without law (i.e., the principle of clarity of taxation requirements), and the principle of no taxation without law (i.

On the other hand, the issue of whether the disposition of tax disposition is legitimate or not shall be determined depending on whether the amount of tax exceeds a legitimate amount of tax, and the parties concerned may submit arguments and materials supporting the objective tax liability until the closing of argument in the fact-finding court. When a legitimate amount of tax to be imposed lawfully is calculated based on such materials, only the portion exceeding the legitimate amount of tax should be revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8459, Apr. 12, 1991). As seen above, since the appraisal price of the apartment of this case can be deemed as the market price as of the above donation date, the appraisal price of the apartment of this case as of the above donation date can be deemed as the market price as of the above donation date, and thus, it shall be revoked only the portion exceeding the legitimate amount of tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8459, Apr. 12, 191). The plaintiff's assertion that the transaction price of the comparative apartment cannot be seen as the market price of the apartment of this case, and thus cannot be revoked.

(2) The plaintiff asserts that the application of the appraisal price requested by the defendant for the application of the appraisal price is against the principle of pleading.

On the other hand, the defendant asserted that the market price appraisal of the apartment of this case was correct market price of the apartment of this case by asserting the legality of the disposition of this case in the court of first instance, and that the above appraisal price was correct market price of the Amart of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant asserted and proved that the above appraisal price was market price as of the date of donation of the apartment of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the defendant's claim for revocation as to the part exceeding KRW 19,384,640 of the imposition of gift tax of KRW 22,798,980 for the year 2006, against the plaintiff and the Selection KimA, which was made by the defendant on March 1, 2008, shall be dismissed, and the claim for revocation as to the remaining part of each of the above imposition disposition of KRW 19,384,640 for the remaining part shall be dismissed, without any justifiable reason. Since part of the lawsuit in this case is illegal during the trial of the court of first instance after the judgment, it is reasonable to revise the judgment of the court of first instance as referred to in paragraph (1) of the above disposition, and it is so decided as per Disposition.