Suwon District Court 201Mo11670 (2012.06.08)

National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2011-0150 ( October 30, 2011)

The purchase price under a sales contract is recognized as an actual acquisition price.

A sales contract prepared between a seller and a seller was agreed to pay the sales price and the delinquent taxes attached to the transferred real estate by a buyer on behalf of the buyer. In light of the fact that gains on transfer consistently asserted by a seller are not much different from the amount under the sales contract, the sales price is recognized as real acquisition value under the sales contract.

2012Nu199 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Park XX

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap1670 Decided June 8, 2012

November 14, 2012

December 5, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on June 1, 2010 against the Plaintiff on the 2006 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiff seeking revocation as set forth below shall be revoked. The part exceeding KRW 000 out of the imposition disposition of capital gains tax belonging to the year 2006, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on June 1, 2010, shall be revoked.

The reasoning of this court's judgment is to change "No. 11 through No. 14 of A" to "No. 11 through No. 13 of A" for "No. 4 of the first instance court's decision, as it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance court's decision, and therefore, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that the actual acquisition value of the instant real estate is KRW 000,000 in the court. However, the above facts are as follows: ① A sales contract made between KimA and the Plaintiff did not appear to have been proved as evidence No. 8; ② in the contract, the sales price was paid in 000 won by the Plaintiff, and the delinquent resident tax was KRW 00; ② KimA consistently asserted that the transfer price of the instant real estate was at least KRW 00,000, and that the transfer price of the instant real estate was at least KRW 00 on December 2, 2009; ② KimA consistently asserted that the transfer price of the instant real estate was at least KRW 2-1, Eul’s evidence No. 6-2, and 3). The amount is not much different from the transfer price of the instant real estate in the instant disposition (i.e., the estimated amount is 00 won + the actual acquisition price of the instant real estate that occurred at the time of the sales contract) (i.e., the actual acquisition price of the instant real real real real real property was 000 won).

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.