Seocho 208west 1563 ( November 04, 2008)

Whether the signboard manufacturing cost, the net repair cost is a constituent element of the capital expenditure of the building;

Expenses for signboard production and temperature repair are expenses for maintaining the original function of a building as expenses for normal repair or minor improvement of a building, i.e., expenses for revenue disbursement, and expenses for interior construction shall not be deemed expenses for capital disbursement only in the business day.

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

Article 96 (Transfer Price)

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income Tax)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 163,648,230 on the Plaintiff on December 7, 2007 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 소외 이○○의 명의를 빌려 소외 문☆☆, 김◇◇과 함께 2001. 8. 21. 소 외 김★★으로부터 서울 강남구 ●●동 706-15 대 333.4㎡ 및 그 지상 5층 건물(이하, '이 사건 부동산'이라 한다)을 1,550,000,000원에 각 1/3씩 취득하였고, 그 후 김◇◇이 이 사건 부동산에 관한 1/3 지분을 정◎◎에게 양도하자, 원고가 2002. 8. 13 정◎◎으로부터 위 부동산에 관한 1/3 지분을 취득함과 동시에 이○○ 명의로 이전되어 있던 위 부동산에 관한 1/3 지분을 원고 명의로 이전하였으며, 그 후 2002. 11. 9 문☆☆으로부터 위 부동산에 관한 1/3 지분을 취득하여 위 부동산의 완전한 소유자가 되었다.

나. 원고는 2007. 1. 31. 소외 이◆◆, 이□□에게 이 사건 부동산을 양도하고, 같은 날 위 부동산의 양도에 관하여 실지 거래가액에 의한 양도가액을 4,200,000,000원, 취득가액을 2,218,333,334원, 기타 필요경비를 1,055,830,910원(증, 개축비용 818,000,000 원, 간판제작 등 기타비용 121,438,590원, 취, 등록세 116,392,320원)으로 하여 산정한 양도소득세 255,950,720원을 예정신고, 납부하였다.

C) After that, the Defendant recognized the transfer value of the instant real estate as KRW 4,200,00,000, acquisition value as KRW 2,283,333,334, and other necessary expenses (excluding KRW 545,33,333, out of KRW 818,00,00 as claimed by the Plaintiff, and KRW 66,71,923, including the total of KRW 121,438,590, and the total of KRW 187,07,740, and KRW 740 as 389,98,987, and the instant disposition was issued on December 7, 2007, which corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 187,07,740 as 207.

D. On February 27, 2008, the plaintiff appealed against the disposition of this case and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On January 15, 2009, the defendant rendered a decision to reduce the transfer income tax of KRW 23,359,510 by additionally recognizing the amount of KRW 77,334,00 (the cost of capital increase and reconstruction work was KRW 350,000) to other necessary expenses (the cost of capital increase and reconstruction work was KRW 350,000) as necessary expenses according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal, and reached the plaintiff around that time ( therefore, the transfer income tax imposed on the disposition of this case became KRW 163,648,230).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since the Plaintiff purchased the instant real property and disbursed KRW 2,270,000,00 in total as expenses for capital increase and reconstruction work for operating as a massage place, the Plaintiff should be recognized as necessary expenses in entirety, and even if not, at least KRW 403,194,00 paid by the Plaintiff to the construction business operator directly, should be recognized as necessary expenses.

(2) Furthermore, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate and then disbursed KRW 121,438,590 in total as expenses for the production of signboards, etc. to operate the said real estate as the place of massage practice. This constitutes capital expenditures as expenses incurred to operate the said real estate as the place of massage practice. As such, all of the expenses should be recognized as necessary expenses. Even if not, at least 5,560,000 paid by the Plaintiff for the interior place of the instant real estate should be recognized as capital expenses to increase the asset value of the said real estate.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The tax authority shall bear the burden of proof on the legality of taxation, including the capital gains tax base, and the tax base shall be the tax authority, in principle, because the tax base of necessary expenses is deducted from the transfer value, and the burden of proof shall also be the tax authority. However, the expenses for the expansion, reconstruction, and production of signboards, etc. of the instant real estate claimed by the Plaintiff are favorable to the Plaintiff in calculating the capital gains tax, and the basic facts are within the scope of the Plaintiff’s control, so it is difficult to investigate the Defendant, who is the tax authority, while it is easy for the Plaintiff to prove.

(2) 그러므로 먼저 원고가 이 사건 부동산을 매수한 후 안마시술소로 운영하기 위한 증, 개축공사 비용으로 합계 2,270,000,000원을 지출하였는지 여부에 대하여 살피건 대, 이에 부합하는 증거로는 갑 제5호증, 갑 제6호증의 1 내지 24의 각 기재가 있으나, 을 제1 내지 12호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 원고가 2007. 1. 31.자 양도소득세 예정신고, 납부 당시 필요경비로 총 공사비 818,000,000원을 신고하였고, 세무조사 당시에 제출한 사실 확인서에서도 원고가 전남 나주 소재 골재 채취 사업에 지분 투자를 하여 5일 단위로 결산하여 지급받는 수익금으로 합계 818,000,000원의 공사대금을 2001. 8. 27.부터 같은 해 10. 20.까지 지급하였다고 밝힌 점(을 제7호증), ② 원고와 함께 이 사건 부동산을 1/3 지분씩 공동으로 매수하였던 김◇◇, 문☆☆은 위 부동산의 매수 당시 매매대금과 건물의 증, 개축공사비용 등을 지분별로 부담하기로 하였고, 이에 따라 문☆☆이 공사비용 중 자신의 지분에 해당하는 350,000,000원을 부담하였다고 확인한 접(을 제S, 9호 증), ③ 원고는 세무조사 당시 사돈지간인 △△설비 강▲▲에게 증, 개축 공사를 의뢰하면서 공사계약서를 작성한 사설이 없다고 진솔하였다가, 뒤늦게 공사와 관련된 구체적 내용의 기재도 없고, 계약금 지급 여부도 표시되지 않은 형식적인 내용의 도급계약서를 제출한 점(갑 제5호증, 을 제7호증), ④ 원고가 주장하는 증, 개축공사 비용이 2,270,000,000원으로서 거액임에도 수급인인 △△설비 강▲▲이 사망하였다는 이유만 으로 공사대금의 지급에 관한 객관적인 금융자료 등을 대부분 제출하지 못한 채 입금표만을 제시하고 있다는 점, ⑤ 원고는 최소한 403,194,000원을 공사업자에게 직접 지급하였다고 주장하나, 그 중 1억 원의 인건비에 관하여는 아무런 증거가 없고, 따라서 나머지 303,194,000원을 모두 지급한 것으로 인정하더라도 피고가 증, 개축공사와 관련하여 필요경비로 인정해 준 350,000,000원을 초과하지 않는다는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 위 각 증거들은 쉽사리 믿기 어렵고, 갑 제7호증의 1, 2, 갑 제8호증의 1 내지 8, 갑 제9호증의 1, 2, 갑 제10호증의 각 기재와 증인 정▽▽의 증언만으로는 원고의 위 주장사실을 인정하기에 부족하며, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

(3) Furthermore, as to whether or not the Plaintiff spent the total of KRW 121,438,590 (including the cost of internal funeral construction in KRW 55,560,00) for the purpose of operating the instant real estate as a place of massage practice after the purchase of the instant real estate, each description of the evidence Nos. 11 through 13 (including the paper number) and the testimony of the witness △△△△△ is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Furthermore, Article 97 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that capital expenditures calculated by applying mutatis mutandis Article 163 (3) 1 and 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, or those paid for the alteration, improvement or convenience of use of transferred assets, or those paid for the alteration or convenience of use of transferred assets. Article 67 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act defines "capital expenditures" as "repair expenses disbursed to extend the lifespan of depreciable assets owned by one businessman or to increase the real value of the relevant assets." Ultimately, in order to constitute capital expenditures, etc., it is difficult to accept such expenses as expenses for the extension of the lifespan of transferred assets or for the alteration, improvement or convenience of use of transferred assets, or for the improvement or convenience of the building, it is difficult to view the expenses for the improvement or convenience of the building as capital expenditures as expenses for the improvement or convenience of the building rather than for the improvement or convenience of the use or use of the building.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the legitimate disposition of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.