Incheon District Court 2012Gudan512 ( November 27, 2012)

It is the case where the classification of value is unclear as the house and commercial building are transferred en bloc without distinction between the value of the house and commercial building.

Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant calculated in proportion to the individual land price, public notice price, and individual housing price pursuant to the relevant statutes is lawful.

2012Nu39850 Revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

KimA

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

Incheon District Court Decision 2012Gudan512 Decided November 27, 2012

September 3, 2013

October 11, 2013

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 imposition of the capital gains tax for the year 2010 on July 1, 2011 by the defendant against the plaintiff shall be revoked (the head of the office's claim seems to be erroneous).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning for the court's decision is the same as the stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part as stated in paragraph (2) below

2. Parts in height:

In the case of the first instance court's decision, the 2nd page 15 of the first instance court's decision (hereinafter "the disposition in this case") shall be deleted.

In the 3th sentence of the first instance judgment, the following is added.

(hereinafter referred to as the "instant disposition") the remaining portion of the disposition imposing capital gains tax as of July 1, 201 is reduced as above.

In the case of the court of first instance, the part of the 3th to 4th to 11th to 3th to 3th to 4th to 4th, is as follows.

C. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the fact that the transferred value of the building of this case was reported as of September 13, 2010, and the building was constructed on September 29, 201 with building permission obtained on September 29, 201 and obtained approval for use on September 28, 201 can be acknowledged.

However, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that the officially assessed land price of the land of this case at the time of 2010 is OOOO/m2, and the officially assessed land price of the building of this case is 379.5m2 in the real estate indication column in the sale and purchase contract of the land of this case, and the sale price of the housing and commercial building was 45.78m2 in the sale price column, and there was no distinction between the value of the housing and commercial building, and the value of the land and the building portion at the time of the transfer by the plaintiff, and the fact that the plaintiff had existed in the housing and commercial building of this case at the time of the transfer of the land of this case at the time when the plaintiff reported the transfer income tax to the defendant in the same manner as the defendant.

위 인정사실과 같이 주택과 상가가 있었음에도 매매계약서에 주택과 상가부분의 가액이 구분되어 있지 않은 점(설령 구분되어 있었다고 하더라도 주택부분이 비과세되는 점을 이용하여 실제와 다르게 작성할 가능성도 있으므로 이를 쉽게 그대로 인정하는 것은 어려울 것이다), 원고도 피고와 동일한 방식으로 주택 및 부수토지와 상가 및 부수토지의 가액을 구분하여 양도소득세 신고를 한 점, 일반적으로 토지의 거래시가가 개별공시지가를 상회하는 경우가 많음을 감안하더라도 원고가 이 사건 토지 및 건물 매매대금의 산정근거로 주장한 평당 OOOO원은 이 사건 토지의 2010년 당시의 개별공시지가{평당 약 OOOO원(=OOOO원/㎡X3.3)}를 현저하게 초과하여 이러한 사정에 비추어 볼 때 이 사건 토지의 가액만을 기준으로 이 사건 매매계약의 매매대금을 정하였다고 보기 어려운 점, 원고가 주장하는 양도가액 산정방법에 의하면 이 사건 상가의 가액이 0이 되는데 이 사건 상가가 신축 후 30년이 경과하였다고 하여 건물의 교환가치가 0이 된다고 볼 수 없을 뿐만 아니라 실제로 이 사건 상가의 2010년 당시의 건물고시가격이 OOOO원/㎡에 이르러 이러한 사정에 비추어 볼 때 원고 주장의 양도 가액 산정방법은 거래현실이나 경험칙에 부합하지 않는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 이 사건 주택과 부수토지 및 상가와 부수토지의 가액을 구분하지 아니한 채 일괄 양도하여 각 자산별 양도가액의 구분이 불분명한 경우에 해당한다고 보아야 할 것이다.

Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant calculated in proportion to the individual land price, building public notice price, and individual housing price in accordance with the relevant statutes is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.