The disposition that calculates the transfer margin by deeming the acquisition value reported by the transferee as the actual transfer value is legitimate.

Since the acquisition value reported by the transferee is recognized as the transfer value of the Plaintiff, it is legitimate to calculate gains on transfer by considering it as the actual transaction value.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 129,622,560 against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On May 24, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired a 316-6 square meters, 204.5 square meters, and 443.92 square meters of accommodation facilities of three stories above the ground (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) on March 19, 2004, and transferred it to Civil Aviation on March 19, 2004. On April 30, 2004, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax and the tax amount based on the actual transaction value, and paid KRW 360,00,000, acquisition value of KRW 315,000,000, and paid KRW 3,115,260, capital gains tax accordingly.

B. However, after the CivilA transferred the instant real estate on January 10, 2008, it reported the acquisition value to KRW 610,000,000 at the time of filing a transfer income tax return, the Defendant corrected the transfer value of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff at KRW 610,00,000, and additionally imposed and notified KRW 129,62,568 of the transfer income tax for June 1, 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① In light of the transaction practices at the time when the purchase price is set at a higher amount than the standard market price, the Plaintiff’s preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income based on the acquisition price and transfer price indicated in the seal of approval agreement shall be deemed not to have been made, but to have been reported based on the standard market price. ② Even if the actual transaction price is reported, both the acquisition price and transfer price are not confirmed or only one of the two are confirmed, and ③ In calculating the transfer income tax, Article 96(1)6 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837, Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”) and the proviso to Article 114(4) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 837, Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”)

Therefore, in calculating the transfer income tax of the instant real estate, the acquisition value and the transfer value should be based on the standard market price. Thus, the instant disposition imposing the transfer income tax on the basis of the actual transaction price should be revoked illegally.

B. Determination

(1) Whether it constitutes a case reported based on the actual transaction price

The fact that the Plaintiff made a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income based on the actual transaction price is as seen earlier, and the fact that the Plaintiff made a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income based on the acquisition value and transfer value under the approval seal contract cannot be deemed to have reported based on the

(2) Whether the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition or transfer is confirmed

(A) The actual transaction value at the time of transfer

After transferring the instant real estate on January 10, 2008, the fact that the acquisition value was reported to the Plaintiff at the time of the transfer income tax return was KRW 610,00,000 as seen earlier. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the public witness and the testimony of the public witness, the privateA prepared a sales contract (No. 8) between the Plaintiff on March 18, 2004 and the Plaintiff to purchase the instant real estate at KRW 610,000,000 among the Plaintiff. The privateA may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff paid the purchase price by withdrawing KRW 610,00,000 from its own account on March 19, 2004 as a check, and any statement contrary thereto is contrary to the evidence No. 2, contrary to the belief and evidence No. 2.

(b) The actual transaction price at the time of acquisition.

Unless there are special circumstances, a person who asserts that the contract was prepared according to the terms of the contract between the parties and that the contract was prepared differently from the actual ones shall prove that the seal of approval affixed by the parties to the transaction and the head of the Si/Gun, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu282 delivered on November 24, 192).

In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 3-1’s statement, it is recognized that the approval seal contract (Evidence No. 3-1) prepared by the plaintiff at the time of purchasing the real estate of this case from Lee Jong-seok, stated that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case at KRW 315,00,000,000, since the actual transaction price at the time of acquiring the real estate of this case is presumed to be KRW 315,00,000.

(C) Sub-determination

According to the above facts, although the actual transaction price at the time of transfer of the real estate of this case was 610,00,000 won, the plaintiff applied the actual transaction price different from the fact and applied the actual transaction price, so the disposition of this case imposing capital gains tax on the basis of the actual transaction price confirmed under the proviso of Article 114 (4) of the former Income Tax Act is legitimate

(3) Whether capital gains tax may be imposed on the basis of the actual transaction price confirmed under the proviso of Article 114(4) of the former Income Tax Act in a case where the amount reported based on the actual transaction price is larger than the

In light of the legislative intent of the proviso of Article 114(4) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 653, Jul. 26, 2002; Act No. 6554, Jan. 26, 2002; Act No. 6554, Jan. 28, 2001; Act No. 6554, Jan. 28, 2001; Act No. 6555, Jan. 28, 2001; Act No. 6554, Jan. 28, 2001; Act No. 6554, Jan. 26, 2002; Act No. 6554, Jan. 28, 2001; Act No. 6683, Jan. 28, 2001; Act No. 66813, Jan. 28, 2005).

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.