Where the cause of acquisition is a sale, one appraised value shall not be deemed the acquisition value.

In case where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition, not only the order of application of transaction example value, appraisal value, conversion value, but also the requirements are limited.

Article 100 (Calculation of Gains on Transfer of Income Tax Act)

Daejeon District Court 2014Gudan1135

OO

O Head of tax office

October 23, 2015

November 06, 2015

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 00, 200, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership share of 1/3 of 00 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - (hereinafter “the instant land”). On the instant land, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership share of 1/3 of the building (hereinafter “the instant building”) by constructing a new building in 2002 and extending in 2004 on the instant land (hereinafter “the instant building”).

B. On October 00, 200, the Plaintiff transferred the Plaintiff’s share in the instant real estate in KRW 00 million to Kima.

C. Around October 2000, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on the transfer of the Plaintiff’s share among the instant real estate to the Defendant, and the acquisition value of the Plaintiff’s share among the instant building was based on the conversion value.

D. On October 00, 200, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction on the ground that “The acquisition value of the Plaintiff’s share among the instant buildings shall be based on the appraisal value.” On October 00, 2000, the Defendant rendered a claim for correction against the Plaintiff for the following reasons: “The appraisal value (one Korea Appraisal Board and one appraisal agency) recognized the acquisition value of the building as the acquisition value does not constitute the average appraisal value; and it is not reasonable to recognize the acquisition value of the loan as the acquisition value at the time of acquisition, even if the book value, for which depreciation costs are calculated each year at the time of the return of global income tax base for at least 10 years after the construction of the building by the contract construction method, despite the acquisition value, is calculated as the acquisition value at the time of acquisition.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 4-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the instant disposition is unlawful.

1) The Defendant recognized the acquisition value of the building of this case based on the book value of KRW 00 million, but there is no reliable evidence to recognize that the book value is the real acquisition value, and thus, it should not be calculated based on the real acquisition value. The construction cost of the building of this case is at least KRW 0 billion.

2) Since each subparagraph of Article 176-2(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26067, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”) is an exemplary provision, the value assessed by a single appraisal institution may be deemed as the market price if the value assessed by an appraisal institution was assessed in an objective and reasonable manner. The 00 appraiser, a government-invested appraisal institution, appraised the instant building as KRW 0 billion on Oct. 00, 200, should be recognized as the acquisition price based on the said provision.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) In calculating gains on transfer, the actual transaction value, which is the basis for the calculation of gains on transfer, refers not to the general market price that reflects the objective exchange value, but to the amount actually agreed for the payment of benefits in itself or at the time of the transaction. Articles 97(1)1(b) and 163(12) and 176-2(2) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12169, Jan. 1, 2014) stipulate not only the order of application of transaction example, appraisal value, and conversion value in substitution of the actual transaction value, but also the requirements are limited (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du24286, Oct. 15, 2015).

2) On the other hand, the plaintiff filed a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income by converting the acquisition value of the shares of the plaintiff among the buildings of this case. The defendant, only refused the plaintiff's request for correction, but did not recognize the new book value as the acquisition value of the shares of the plaintiff among the buildings of this case by making the

In addition, according to each of the items of evidence Nos. 4 and 5-1, 2, 6 through 11, and 15 of the original conversion price, the actual transaction price at the time of acquiring the Plaintiff’s share in the instant building constitutes a case where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of acquiring the Plaintiff’s share, taking into account the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s preliminary return was made on the conversion price; and (b) the Plaintiff’s statement, contract, and the acquisition price of the instant building is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s investigation agency’s statement, contract, and acceptance book (not applicable to the appraisal price claimed by the Plaintiff); and (c) Furthermore, the acquisition price of the Plaintiff’s share in the instant building should be converted into the actual transaction price pursuant to Articles 163(12), 176-2(2) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.