The calculation of real estate transfer value is appropriate.

As alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have transferred the purchase price of the instant real estate to KRW 80 million, and the transfer price of machinery and equipment to KRW 660 million.

Article 100 of the Income Tax Act

Suwon District Court 2013Gudan5207 ( October 13, 2015)

Title 00

00. Head of tax office

December 19, 2015

oly 13, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Disposition imposing capital gains tax of 000 won for the year 2006 on the Plaintiff on April 24, 2012

section of the purport of the claim is revoked (to the extent that it does not go against the intent of the party).

A partial correction was made).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff on June 26, 2006 00 00 -00 -00 - on June 26, 2006 and 3,936 m2 and its ground

165 square meters in a 00-dong factory, 00-dong factory, 490 square meters in a 00-dong factory, 329 square meters in a 00-dong factory, and 1,089 square meters in a warehouse

(hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") and 8 mechanical devices (hereinafter referred to as the "technical devices of this case").

On August 17, 2006, 2000, hereinafter referred to as '000' acquired through a public auction procedure

C) The real estate of this case and the machinery of this case were transferred to the Defendant on October 30, 2006.

The transfer value of the instant real estate is KRW 80 million (land 470 million, building 330 million).

By reporting and paying capital gains tax of 000 won.

B. The director of the tax office of 00 shall conduct an on-site investigation of transfer income tax against the plaintiff.

this section shall be deemed to have transferred real estate and machinery to 0 billion won (including value-added tax).

The transfer value of real estate was KRW 0 billion (land KRW 000,100,000,000,000,000) and notified the Defendant of taxation data.

C. Accordingly, on August 6, 2012, the Defendant: (a) reported the Plaintiff’s under-reported amount of KRW 000 to the Plaintiff; and

On the premise that the director of the Central District Tax Office’s correction and notification of the transfer income tax for the year 2006, upon the Plaintiff’s filing of objection, constitutes a case where the distinction between the transfer value of the instant real estate and machinery is unclear, pursuant to the proviso of Article 48-2(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the Plaintiff determined the transfer value of the instant real estate as KRW 000 (land, KRW 000, KRW 000) by dividing the transfer value of the instant real estate and machinery by the appraisal value at the time when the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate and machinery as a public auction, and then the Defendant adjusted the transfer value of the instant real estate as KRW 00 ( KRW 00,000) in April 24, 2013.

D. The Defendant appealed to the Tax Tribunal for a trial on September 3, 2013. However, the tax trial on September 3, 2013

The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed by the plaintiff.

Facts that there is no dispute for recognition, entry in Gap evidence 2-1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 through 5, and pleadings

The purport of the whole

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The defendant is a provision for calculating gains on transfer under Article 100 of the Income Tax Act, Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Article 166 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 48-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provide the basis provisions.

Tax requirements legal principle on tax base, taxable period, and tax rate under the Enforcement Decree other than the law.

A violation was committed.

2) The Plaintiff’s sales price of the instant real estate between 000 and 800 million won, as to the instant real estate.

In light of the following circumstances, the instant disposition based on the premise that the transfer value of the instant real estate is KRW 00,000 was 00,000,000 for the instant machinery and devices, and thus, the sales contract was concluded by setting the purchase price as KRW 630,000,00 and paid the purchase price accordingly.

A) The instant real estate and machinery sales proceeds in order to prepare the instant real estate and machinery

In order to obtain a loan of real estate as security after being provided as security, the sales price of real estate is high.

The sales contract stating the purchase price of the instant real estate as KRW 1.5 billion is required by the contract;

Preparation of Note (No. 5) was made, and 000 was made, in relation to the Plaintiff, the transfer income tax

In the event of a problem, each letter (No. 6) stating that the problem will be responsible for the occurrence of the problem, and the whole 00, the actual representative director of the 000, respectively, prepared and delivered a written confirmation to confirm the above circumstances (No. 10).

B) The instant real estate and machinery were reported by reducing the actual transaction price.

For the plaintiff, capital gains tax shall be imposed on the plaintiff, and acquisition tax shall be imposed on the plaintiff, respectively;

000 The calculation of false corporate tax and the addition of subsequent acquisition tax are the business place exempted from acquisition tax.

There is no risk of the occurrence of liability for payment.

C) As to the sales of the instant machinery from 000 to 630 million won

30 million won and 330 million won upon receipt of a request for the issuance of tax invoices by dividing them into two copies.

(A) Part 2 of the tax invoice, each value-added tax, was issued and issued.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On June 8, 2006, the Plaintiff sold the instant land and machinery by public auction from the Korea Asset Management Corporation.

through B, the sale price of KRW 0 billion was acquired in the amount of KRW 1 million, and the Korea Appraisal Board at the time of the above public auction.

the appraisal value of the real estate of this case shall be KRW 000 (land 000, building)

The appraisal value of the mechanical device in this case is KRW 000 and KRW 000,000.

00 won was 00 won

2) On August 17, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate and machinery to 000, and this case’s real estate and machinery.

The transfer value of the real estate in this case shall be KRW 800 million (land KRW 070 billion, building KRW 000 billion).

The Do income tax was returned, and sales tax invoice and 00 Gong300,000,000

The sales tax invoice entered as KRW 330 million was issued.

3) 000: The instant real property at the time of investigating the transfer income tax on the Plaintiff of Mapung-si Port

A total of 000 won was acquired, and financial data, etc. were submitted.

4) The trading system drawn up between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the instant real estate and machinery between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff,000

The four summarys are all as follows:

A) A sales contract which causes 80 million won of the purchase price on July 13, 2006

○ Sales Amounting to KRW 80 million

Special contract terms: A Dong, B Dong, Cdong 984m2, 1,089m2, mechanical equipment

The Gu shall separately settle the accounts.

Done Date: July 13, 2006

B) A sales contract causing 800 million won of the purchase price on August 9, 2006

○ Sales Amounting to KRW 80 million

○ Special Agreement: Transfer of all buildings including land for factory and buildings and warehouse operation;

Machines and apparatus shall be separately settled.

Preparation Date: August 9, 2006

○ Attachment 1: Creditor Co., Ltd. and the debtor 000 et al.

Transfer for security and relocation of a guarantor 00 representative of the precision industry, the maximum amount of debt 400 million

Documents for establishing mortgage contract ( dated August 14, 2006)

○ Attachment 2: The Plaintiff and the 000

the transfer income tax to be incurred after the transfer registration shall be 00

00 Notarial Deed of Money Loan Agreements providing that an undertaking to assume responsibility shall be made;

Certificate without Juristic Person (No. 000, August 14, 2006), No. 006

C) A sales contract causing 1.1 billion won for the purchase price

net

Congress

Product model name manufacturer's amount of tonnage (per thousand won)

1 Gender criminal withdrawns SPE-1300 850 tons modern sex season 100,000

2 Gender-E-850 tons of modern sex period 40,000

3 MaE-650 650 metric tons 30,000

4 PE-450 tons of modern sex period 50,000

5 HS-72 50HP show machines 5,000

6 Haist crane 10 tons 25,000

7

Refrigering pipe equipment; and

Corring tower

30,000

8 Water transformation equipment 300KW 20,000

Total 300,000

○ Sales Amounting to KRW 1.1 billion

○ Land KRW 500 million, building KRW 250 million (excluding value-added tax), warehouse KRW 50 million (excluding value-added tax),

[Separate Value Tax] 300 million won of machines and apparatus (excluding value-added tax);

D) A sales contract causing 1.5 billion won for the purchase price

○ Sales Amounting to 1.5 billion won

○ Land, Building, Warehouse, Machines and Instruments

○ Liability for the remainder at the same time as the transfer of ownership after the intermediate payment was made on July 31, 2006

for the remaining 400 million won of the instant real property in order to maintain the

Establishment of a collateral security right and sale of machinery and equipment before the balance settlement date;

(2) If any of the above conditions is violated, the machinery and apparatus may be sold by mutual agreement.

The Plaintiff, a seller, can dispose of at will.

○ List of Separate Machines and Instruments

Account Titles

December 31, 2005

Current (united ,00 won)

December 31, 2006

Current (united ,00 won)

December 31, 2007

Current (united ,00 won)

December 31, 2008

Current (united ,00 won)

800,000 807,649 807,649

Building 0 795,960 842,373 820.696

Machines and apparatus 06,714 381,128 364,604

5) The director of the tax office 000 at the time of inspection on the transfer of the instant real estate and machines

of 000, however, a bank requested to submit a separate list of acquisition values of each asset of the workplace, etc.

There was no other supporting documents except transfer evidence. Meanwhile, 000 real estate and equipment of this case

The books of land, buildings, and machinery and equipment appropriated at the time of the settlement of accounts for each business year after acquiring the guidance system;

The amounts shall be specified as follows:

6) The Plaintiff purchased additional machinery in addition to the instant machinery to the Defendant, etc.

the date of issuance from January 30, 2008 to January 30, 2009, alleging that Eul sold to 000

15,203,330 per cent of the supply value, the case ethyl, product scrap metal, and supply value

Part 12 of the tax invoice was submitted.

7) Meanwhile, an appeal filed against the Plaintiff on December 6, 2013, claiming a contract amount, etc. filed by the Plaintiff against 0000

The judgment above is affirmed as the plaintiff won in the lawsuit of this case between 000 and 000 during the trial of this case.

000 in the event of partial loss, mediation, acceptance, or settlement, as well as at the time of the settlement;

C. The remainder of the agreed amount shall be paid to 20 million won, and the plaintiff's winning in the lawsuit of this case shall be determined.

In the case, the plaintiff agreed to return 00 million won to 000,000 won;

The certificate was drawn up.

Facts having no dispute over recognition, Gap's entries in Gap's 1 through 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, Eul's 4 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

1) With respect to the first argument, the tax laws adopted under Articles 38 and 59 of the Constitution

The principle of interest rates shall be the representative of the people in the requirements and procedures for the exercise of tax rights, such as tax requirements and collection procedures.

that the National Assembly, which is a member of the National Assembly, shall be defined by the laws enacted, but matters concerning the requirements and procedures for taxation and collection

It is not possible to delegate the matters to the subordinate laws, such as orders and rules, but not to prescribe them.

If the matters are delegated to the subordinate laws and regulations, only specific and individual delegations shall be permitted and promulgated.

General or white land delegation is not allowed, and orders and regulations pursuant to such laws or delegations are not allowed.

Provisions should be meaningful and clear (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 94Da18, Sept. 30, 1994).

Article 100 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006) is a legal fiction.

In applying the provisions of paragraph (1), the transfer or acquisition value shall be calculated based on the actual transaction price.

Where land, buildings, etc. are acquired or transferred together, they shall be divided.

and where the distinction between the value of land and buildings, etc. is unclear, the time of acquisition or transfer;

Considering the standard market price, etc., it shall be calculated in accordance with the Presidential Decree.

The acquisition value and the cost of transfer shall be calculated in proportion to the value of the relevant asset, and the provision of paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that the matters necessary for calculating the gains on transfer shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree. If land and buildings are acquired or transferred together with another land and buildings, the principle of calculated division shall be provided for in the Income Tax Act if the distinction between the

Considering the standard market price at the time of acquisition or transfer of the calculated method;

Sub-laws delegation to the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and it is apparent that specific and individual delegation is made.

by delegation, the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890, Feb. 28, 2007)(amended by Presidential Decree No. 1989

The provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act and the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act shall also be made clear as

Since the above provision is prescribed, it cannot be said that the above provision violates the principle of taxation requirement legal principle.

2) On the second argument, the health room, the facts of the recognition and the evidence and the arguments mentioned above.

In light of the following circumstances that may be recognized or inferred by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the body:

The transfer value of the building portion among the real estate in this case shall be KRW 30 million and the amount of land portion shall be KRW 30 million.

The Do value is calculated as KRW 740,000,000,000 for each real estate in the corrective disposition on August 6, 2012 by the defendant

It is difficult to consider that the value was reflected in the legitimate market price at the time of transfer.

Enforcement Decree of the former Income Tax Act by deeming that the transfer value of assets and machinery is unclear.

Article 166 of this Act and Article 48-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the transfer proceeds of this case’s real estate is KRW 80 million, and that the transfer proceeds of this case’s mechanical equipment is KRW 630 million is without merit.

(A) the book value of the land in the principal account statement at the time of the settlement of the corporate account of 0000 is 80 million won;

The book value of the building (factory) is KRW 795 million and is stated therein.

B) The appraisal value of the instant real estate appraised by the Korea Appraisal Board is KRW 000 (land).

00 won, building 000 won, and building 00 won other than the presentation). Since the appraisal value of the mechanical devices of this case is KRW 000,000, the transfer value of the real estate of this case claimed by the Plaintiff and the transfer value of the mechanical devices of this case is 630,000,000 won and that difference is reasonable.

C) As to Chapter 2 of the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff, 00 factory case of KRW 330 million among them

corporate tax invoice shall be transferred in accordance with the detailed statement of calculation of capital gains at the time the plaintiff filed a transfer income tax return.

The value of KRW 470 million and the value of the share of the building was calculated as KRW 330 million and the value of the share of the building was equal to the value of the share of the building. If all the tax invoices were to be issued with respect to machinery, it seems that there is no reason to issue them by dividing them into two copies of the tax invoice.

D) In submitting 12 copies of the tax invoice, the Plaintiff submitted a number of copies other than the instant mechanical devices.

of this section, however, claims that the machinery of this section was transferred to 000, other than a copy of the above tax invoice.

A corporation for each business year of 000, while other objective evidence is not presented.

Book value of machinery and equipment calculated at the time of settlement of accounts is somewhat somewhat less than in the fiscal year 2007 and 2008.

reduces.

E) According to the list attached to a sales contract which causes 1.5 billion won in the purchase price, the instant machinery and equipment

Each machine value of 8 points is specified, and the total amount is KRW 300 million.

F) A certificate of 000 representative director Lee 000, which partially corresponds to the Plaintiff’s assertion (A)

Each statement of No. 6, 00 written confirmation (No. 10), etc., and part of witness 00 testimony of the previous 00 testimony, are difficult to believe it as it is in light of the previous 00 testimony and each of the circumstances mentioned above (i.e., the statement of the written confirmation of December 4, 2013 between the plaintiff and the 0000 can not be deemed to be a ground for rejecting the credibility of testimony in this court).

3. Conclusion

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

(c)