Jeonju District Court 2008Guhap591 ( November 20, 2008)

Review Division 2007-0109 ( December 13, 2007)

propriety of this disposition by underreporting the sales price of the house;

In the event that a house is sold at a price less than the construction cost of the house, or that a house is sold at a price less than the amount of a bond secured on a house and the amount of a bond refunded is in violation of the empirical rule, the disposition determined and imposed on the basis of the meta of a person in charge of sale is legitimate.

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

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The part of the imposition disposition of KRW 7,845,610 on September 5, 2006 against the Plaintiff on the first quarter of 2003, value-added tax of KRW 13,484,40 on the second quarter of 2003, value-added tax of KRW 14.565.030 on the first quarter of 2004, value-added tax of KRW 70,075,840 on the second quarter of 2004, value-added tax of KRW 1,862,490 on the global income tax of KRW 16,90,480 on the second quarter of 203 (hereinafter each disposition of this case) shall be revoked.

The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant’s each disposition of the instant case is unlawful in light of the substance over form principle by deeming that the sales price of the instant housing was KRW 1,236,00,000,000 in total, even though the actual sales price of 4 multi-household 15 units (hereinafter “the instant housing”) on the fourth parcel of land, such as ○○○-6, etc., ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, which was constructed and sold by the Plaintiff, was KRW 740,000.

On this basis, the first instance court determined the sales price of the instant housing as KRW 1,236,00,000 in total based on the specifications prepared and submitted by ○○, the father of the Plaintiff, who actually sold the instant housing, and each corresponding confirmation letter, and determined that the Defendant’s each disposition of the instant housing was lawful based on the taxation standard. The first instance court’s determination is justifiable following the pleadings.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding evidence that is insufficient to recognize the result of the inquiry into the Seongbuk-gu Office of the court of first instance with "No. 10 to No. 13 (including paper numbers) of No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance" and adding evidence that is insufficient to recognize the result of the inquiry into the Seongbuk-gu Office of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.