Seoul Administrative Court 201Gudan20126, 0124.

Cho High Court Decision 201Do0434 ( October 16, 2011)

Disposition to apply the conversion price on the ground that the actual transaction price cannot be confirmed at the time of acquisition is legitimate.

Since it is insufficient to recognize that the value claimed is the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition, the acquisition value shall be determined by applying the transaction example, etc. in sequence in accordance with the relevant provisions, such as the Income Tax Act, or because there is no possibility of recognizing that there is transaction example of real estate within three months before

2012Nu14127 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX Kim

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Gudan20126 decided April 18, 2012

November 15, 2012

December 13, 2012

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 disposition of the Defendant on September 3, 2010 on the part exceeding KRW 000 among the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the Plaintiff in 2007 (the recorded tax amount seems to include penalty tax) shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In the appellate court, the plaintiff asserts that the real acquisition value of the real estate of this case is 000 won, and even if the above 000 won cannot be recognized as real acquisition value, the above amount constitutes a reasonable amount of transaction example of the real estate of this case, and thus, the disposition of this case applied 00 won, which is the conversion value determined by the defendant pursuant to the related laws and regulations, as acquisition value of the real estate of this case,

Therefore, according to the relevant provisions such as Article 100(1)1 and Article 114(5) and (7) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same), Article 176-2(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter the same), and Article 176-2(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter the same), in cases where the acquisition value of real estate is calculated based on the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition by books or other evidence, if it is impossible to recognize or confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition by applying the "standard market value converted from the sale case price" in sequential order. According to the various circumstances and evidence cited earlier, even if the plaintiff submitted testimony of the party witness at the trial.

Therefore, in this case, since it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquiring the real estate in this case, the acquisition value shall be determined by applying the above transaction example, etc. to the net person pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, etc., and even according to all evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, such as the testimony of the above routeA, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the transaction example of the real estate identical or similar to the above real estate is 00 won within 3 months before and after the date of acquisition of the real estate in this case

Ultimately, in this case where there is no appraisal value acknowledged as credibility because two or more appraisal corporations have appraised within 3 months before and after the date of acquisition of the real estate of this case, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed any illegality in calculating the acquisition value of the real estate of this case as the conversion price under the formula provided for in Article 176-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree [the actual transaction value X at the time of transfer - the standard market price at the time of transfer at the time of transfer - the standard market price at the time of transfer], which

3. If so, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.