Cho High 2012 Before 338 (Law No. 28, 2012.09)

The disposition that calculates the transfer margin by deeming the value of the stamp contract as acquisition value is legitimate.

In light of the fact that the former owner reported the purchase price as the transfer price under the approval form contract at the time of the return of transfer income tax, and the market price appraisal value as a result of the market price appraisal entrustment is highly different from the amount stated in the contract, it is difficult to readily conclude that the value is false on the basis of the approval form contract,

2012Gudan2080 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

HongA

Daejeon Head of the District Tax Office

June 21, 2013

July 12, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 96,656,150 for the Plaintiff on January 2, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired a multi-family house and its ground-based multi-family house (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) from the Daejeon-dong OB on May 1, 2002, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred it to SongCC on October 13, 2003; and (b) made a preliminary return of capital gains tax by making the transfer price of the said real estate at KRW 00,000, and KRW 000,000; (b) the transfereeCC transferred the instant real estate on January 19, 201; and (c) rendered a preliminary return of capital gains tax by taking the transfer price of the said real estate at KRW 00,000 after conducting a field investigation on the portion that the Plaintiff transferred to SongCC by the Defendant on the basis of the scheduled declaration of capital gains tax with the acquisition price of the said real estate at KRW 00.0.

[Reasons for Recognition] The purport of the entire pleadings entered in the evidence No. 4 on January 2, 201 as to the absence of dispute

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In purchasing the instant real estate from leB, the Plaintiff actually assumed the amount of KRW 000 and KRW 000 as well as the Plaintiff’s additional payment, etc., by withdrawing and paying the amount of KRW 000,000,000, which the Plaintiff reported as the initial acquisition price, but at the time, entered into a contract of approval by lowering the sales price to KRW 00,00 according to the so-called “cada contract” practice, and made a preliminary return of capital gains tax based thereon. Accordingly, since the sale price on the seal of approval agreement is not the real purchase price, but the Plaintiff’s actual transaction price cannot be confirmed, the instant disposition that deemed the acquisition price on the seal agreement as the acquisition price is unlawful, even though the acquisition price should be converted.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In the absence of special circumstances, the claimant must prove that the seal of approval signed by the parties to a transaction and affixed the seal of approval by the head of a Si/Gun, etc. is presumed to have been prepared in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, and that the seal of approval has not been duly prepared (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2353, Apr. 9, 1993).

In this case, Gap's evidence 1. 3 and Eul evidence 3, and the court's appraisal of appraiser Lee Jong-B, together with the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the market price entrustment with appraiser Lee Jong-B, are as follows, and the purchase price of the real estate in this case is 000 won, and ② the former owner leB reported to the plaintiff upon reporting the transfer income tax in connection with the transfer of the real estate in this case, and ③ on April 26, 2002, the plaintiff's business to purchase the real estate in this case was withdrawn 00 won from the plaintiff's business Kim GG's deposit account, but it is impossible to find that the above amount was paid to leB, and4, as a result of the market price appraisal entrustment with the real estate in this case, the market price at the time of the purchase of the real estate in this case was 000 won, and there is no evidence to prove that the sale price in this case was 00 won or less between the market price and the sale price written by the plaintiff.

Therefore, the instant disposition that calculated the transfer margin by deeming the acquisition value of the instant real estate as the amount under the seal of approval agreement is lawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.