Cho Jae-201-west-2600 ( November 30, 2011)

The meaning and scope of acquisition value among necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value.

The acquisition value refers to the actual transaction price required for the acquisition of assets, and it includes the amount of debt acquisition that the plaintiff has decided to succeed as the purchase price.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses in Transfer Income)

2012Gudan610. Revocation of disposition to impose capital gains tax;

IsaA

○ Head of tax office

December 12, 2012

February 6, 2013

1. The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on January 11, 201 against the Plaintiff on January 11, 201 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of disposition;

A. On January 24, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land from CC by succeeding the secured obligation of the land owned, and disposed of voluntarily on April 11, 2008 (amount of dividend) from 00 won.

B. The Plaintiff did not report the transfer income tax on the instant land, and received a notice of report after the due date of the materials for which no return was filed for the year 2008, and reported the transfer value of March 31, 2010 as KRW 000,000,000, but the Defendant denied the acquisition value and imposed KRW 000,000,000,000 for the transfer income tax for the year 2008 on January 11, 201.

C. In acquiring the instant land, the Plaintiff filed an objection to the purport that 000 won of the collateral security obligation established by D Bank and EE Savings Bank (hereinafter “Saving Bank”) was exempted from obligation, and thus, it should be recognized as acquisition value. The Defendant recognized only the sum of D Bank’s debt obligations, 000 won, which were distributed in the auction procedure of the instant land, and 000 won, which were paid by D Bank on May 4, 201, as acquisition value, and the remaining amount of tax due to the reduction of capital gains tax of 000 won was 00 won (hereinafter “the disposition of this case”).

D. The Plaintiff was subject to the procedure of the previous trial (e.g., filing an objection and filing a tax appeal).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 11, 14, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

“The instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise, since the Plaintiff’s acquisition price of the instant land should include KRW 000 and KRW 000,000 of the D bank loans and the Savings Bank loans that the Plaintiff agreed to succeed.

(b) recognised facts;

(1) The Plaintiff purchased the instant land from thisCC with a plan to develop the instant land, which is a stock farm site, via the FF.

(2) The instant land was established as a collateral for a savings bank loan of KRW 000 and KRW 000,000 in the name of the bank under the name of thisCC (the first landowner of the instant land), which is the city of thisCC, and the Plaintiff paid the purchase price by acquiring the total amount of the D bank loans and KRW 000 out of the savings bank loans.

(3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff was exempted from liability for KRW 000,000, and the Savings Bank did not consent to the Plaintiff’s exemption from liability by separating the above KRW 00 million.

(4) When the auction procedure was in progress with respect to the instant land, the Savings Bank received 000 won in the auction procedure, and the remaining claims were recovered by receiving KRW 000 out of the total effective value of the expropriation of the land in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OE, including the wife H et al. of the GG.

(5) On September 2010, the Plaintiff and WesternF agreed to settle the remainder of the principal and interest at KRW 000, taking into account the amount of KRW 000,000, out of the savings bank loans the Plaintiff did not acquire, and then the Plaintiff paid KRW 000 to thisG through the SeoF, thereby making a final settlement of the purchase price of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 15 through 20, witness Lee G's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

The acquisition value under Article 97 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act refers to the actual transaction price required for acquiring assets, and according to the above-mentioned facts, the plaintiff is equivalent to the purchase price of the land in this case.

It is reasonable to view that the payment has been completed through the dividend amount and the final settlement of savings bank obligations with respect to bank loans of KRW 000 and savings bank loans of KRW 000,000, and thereafter, it is reasonable to view that the savings bank has received dividends in the auction procedure of the land of this case and paid KRW 000 in addition to KRW 00,000. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, different from this, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Since the disposition of this case should be revoked, the plaintiff's claim is accepted for reasons.