Maximum food and one other (Attorney Choi Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Seogsan Tax Office

October 13, 1989

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 30,07,450, and KRW 5,455,90, and KRW 26,387,07,070, and KRW 4,797,650, and KRW 34,206,810, and KRW 6,841,360, and KRW 360,00,000, from among the imposition disposition of KRW 5,45,90, which was imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff’s tear for May 17, 198, is revoked.

2. Of the disposition of an occasional gift tax of KRW 30,07,450 on June 24, 198 with respect to Plaintiff Seo-gu in 198 and KRW 5,45,90 on the same defense tax, the part that exceeds KRW 26,387,070 and KRW 4,797,650 on the defense tax and KRW 26,387,070 on the tax basis of KRW 5,45,90 shall be revoked.

3. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

4. Three-minutes of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant. One is the remainder of the plaintiffs.

(1) The disposition of imposition of KRW 34,206,81,360 on May 17, 198 by the Defendant of the occasional gift tax of KRW 30,007,450 and KRW 5,455,90 on defense tax of KRW 34,206,810 and KRW 6,841,360 on the same defense tax of KRW 198 shall be revoked. The disposition of imposition of KRW 34,206,81,360 shall be revoked. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant.

(1) The disposition of imposition of KRW 30,007,450 and KRW 5,455,90 of the same defense tax in June 24, 1988 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff Seocho-gu, the amount of which is KRW 30,007,450 and the amount of KRW 5,45,900 shall be revoked. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Judgment on the disposition imposing gift tax on the plaintiffs

According to the evidence Nos. 1-1, 4, 2-1 through 4, 4-2, 6-1, and 2 of the above-mentioned No. 1-2, 3-1, 4-2, 6-1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the above-mentioned No. 80, the defendant acquired real estate from 2, 1983 to 82,00, 700, 100, 300, 300, 500, 700, 500, 70, 148, 148.15, 30, 50, 70, 500, 50, 500, 140, 50, 160, 305, 50, 160, 500, 160, 505, 160, 140, 100, 505, 300, 1, 500

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiffs' evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 200 won are not sold to the non-party 1, 50,000 won as stated in the separate sheet No. 40,000,000 won as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 and the separate sheet No. 1,774,120, and one story of the above real estate No. 1 were not recognized by the defendant. 5,000 won as stated in the separate sheet No. 40,000, and the remaining value of the gift No. 50,000,000 won as stated in the separate sheet No. 40,000 won as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 and the separate sheet No. 50,00,000 won as stated in the separate sheet No. 30,000 won for the above real estate No. 40,000 won.

Therefore, it is reasonable to recognize that the above (5) real estate was donated from the Plaintiff Seo-sung, the husband, in the event that the above (5) real estate was acquired on a large scale of real estate like the above (2) real estate sale price of KRW 5,74,120, in addition to the above (98,150,00, the above) real estate sale price of KRW 98,150,000, the above (2) real estate sale price of KRW 5,74,120, which was confirmed as the source of the real estate sale price of KRW 70,70, KRW 705, KRW 700, KRW 700, KRW 708, KRW 400, KRW 705, KRW 700, KRW 705, KRW 700, KRW 405, KRW 700, KRW 500, KRW 705, KRW 700, KRW 205, KRW 7005, KRW 4005, KRW 2005, KRW 70005, KRW

2. Determination on imposition of capital gains tax on Plaintiff’s best consciousness

In full view of the overall purport of pleadings No. 1-2, No. 3, No. 2-1, No. 3-1, No. 2-2, No. 11-8, No. 12-2, and No. 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the Plaintiff’s maximum formula was 82,00,000 won and acquired real estate No. 1-2, No. 360, Oct. 15, 1987, and calculated No. 840, Oct. 7, 1987; No. 840, Jun. 10, 1987; No. 2065, Aug. 20, 2007; and the Defendant acquired No. 840, Oct. 6, 208; and completed the tax investigation on the same real estate No. 750, Oct. 16, 208; and

Although the defendant calculated the transfer margin of the above real estate transaction, the defendant asserts that the above transfer income tax and defense detailed and disposition based on the actual transaction price without any basis are unlawful, and the defendant asserts that the above transfer income tax and defense detailed and disposition based on the actual transaction price are legitimate, since the plaintiff last formula is the speculative trader under Article 72 (3) 8 of the National Tax Service Directive 980 ( January 26, 1987).

Therefore, Article 23(4) proviso and the proviso of Article 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act provides that the transfer value and acquisition value of real estate shall be based on the standard market price if it is determined by the Presidential Decree. Article 170(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act provides that the cases where the actual transaction value at the time of transfer or acquisition of real estate is confirmed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall be one of the cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree under the proviso of Article 23(4) and the proviso of Article 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act. Article 98(1)2 of the said Act provides that the National Tax Service shall be subject to the imposition of 88(1)1 of the said Act and subparagraph 1 of the said Article. This provision provides that the said provision shall be deemed to be effective by acquiring the real estate from the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and the head of the National Tax Service for a certain period of time after acquiring it from 170(3)8 of the said Decree.

In order to impose capital gains tax on his real estate transaction based on the actual transaction price by recognizing a certain real estate trader as an speculative trader prescribed in Article 980 of the National Tax Service Directive and Article 72 (3) 8 of the Income Tax Act, the head of a tax office may not arbitrarily do so without any objective criteria, and the Income Tax Act provides that the standard market price shall be applied in principle in calculating gains from transfer. In light of the above provisions of Article 72 (3) 1 through 7 of the National Tax Service Directive, unregistered transactions used as a method of tax evasion, transactions conducted under other person or minor's name, a large quantity of transactions, holding period, etc. in real estate transactions, it is reasonable to see that a person who has conducted a transaction equivalent to the type of transaction under Article 72 (3) 1 through 7 of the above National Tax Service Directive is an speculative trader, taking into account the collection, trading volume, holding period, etc. of real estate transactions, and thus, the disposition of the plaintiff Choi Jong-sik is 300 won, 160 won and 25810 won (the above 75010 won and 4500 won).7.7

Therefore, in principle, capital gains tax shall be calculated based on the above (5) (6) real estate 】 (1) 】 (2) 1-6, 7, and 8-1 of the above (5) 】 (5 of the total amount of 148.83 of the above (5) real estate is 29.4 and the part of the housing which is exempted from capital gains tax is 42.51 and 42.51 of the site is 8.4(42.51 】 294/149). Since the above (5) 】 (1-67 of the Income Tax Act, the total value of 1965 of the above real estate shall be 40,60, 200, 460, 240, 306, 309, 140, 1967, 207, 307, 1405) / 196, 207, 307, 1406.6 of the standard market price of the housing site

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the best amount of gift tax of KRW 30,07,450 in 198 and the defense tax of KRW 5,45,90 in 198 exceeds KRW 26,387,07,070 and KRW 4,797,650 in 198, and defense tax of KRW 34,206,810 in 198, and KRW 6,841,360 in 198, to seek revocation of the imposition of gift tax of KRW 30,07,45,450 in 198, and KRW 5,45,90 in 199, and KRW 26,387,070 in 19 and KRW 4,797,650 in 198. The plaintiff's claim for the revocation of the imposition of gift tax of KRW 98 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be without merit and with respect to the remainder of the litigation costs as prescribed in Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act.

November 24, 1989

Judges Cho Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)

[Attachment Form 1]

[Attachment Form 2]

[Attachment Form 3]