Methods of calculating the sales price of commercial buildings;

Where a commercial building is newly constructed and sold, the ratio of the sales price to the estimated sales price (the calculation method of the sales price) shall not be based on the ratio of the sales price (the simple comprehensive cost method) to the sales price in comparison with the building area in calculating the sales price.

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

In the case of a new construction and sale of a commercial building, whether the ratio of the sales price to the estimated sale price (the calculation method of the sales price) shall be applied to the calculation of the sales price in comparison with the building area (the simple comprehensive cost method) without using the ratio of the sales price to the sales price (affirmative)

In the case of new construction and sale of a commercial building, the method of calculating the cost of the commercial building in the building cannot be adopted, and the method of calculating the cost of the commercial building shall not be adopted, among them, the method of calculating the cost of the commercial building according to the simple comprehensive cost calculation method based on the ratio of the area of the actual unit among the total expected area to be sold, not only the basic purpose of calculating the cost but also the purpose of calculating the cost of the commercial building, but also violates the principle of substantial taxation and brings unfavorable results only to taxpayers. Therefore, the acquisition value of each floor shall be determined by the method of calculating the cost of the commercial building in the relevant business year based on the price calculated based on the estimated value of each floor, which is the specific standard for utility value of each floor.

Article 31 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4520 of Dec. 8, 1992)

1. The part of the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 103,972,560 against the Plaintiff as of February 1, 1996, which exceeds KRW 12,863,726, among the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 103,972,560, which the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff as of February 1, 199.

1. Details of taxation; and

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged according to the statements in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1, 3-2, and 1-8.

가. 원고는 ㅇㅇ기업사라는 상호로 상가건물을 분양 및 임대하는 부동산매매업, 부동산임대업, 주차장업을 영위하는 사업자로서 1990. 8. 4. ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지의 25, 26 양 지상에 지하 1층 및 지상 6층의 근린생활시설(상가) 연면적 1,748.84평방미터(이하 이 사건 상가라 한다)를 건축하여 1991. 4. 2. 준공검사를 마친 다음 그중 6층 49.21평방미터를 제외한 연면적 1,699.64평방미터에 대하여 1991년도부터 분양을 시작하였다.

B. In filing a return of the global income tax in 1991, the Plaintiff reported the amount of income generated from real estate sales to KRW 1,068,340,917, and appropriated the construction cost to KRW 894,424,05, and filed a return of KRW 933,623,128 in total necessary expenses by adding other expenses to the total amount of KRW 894,623,128. The Plaintiff’s inclusion of the total amount of KRW 894,424,05 in the construction cost as the sales price (sales price) is an amount of the total amount of KRW 1,068,340,91 in total [the total amount of KRW 1,068,340,917] in proportion to the ratio of the amount of income generated from the sale price in 191 to the total estimated sale price (the total amount of KRW 1,707,24,90) and the total estimated sale price (the total estimated sale price of KRW 900];

C. In regard to this, the Defendant did not recognize the amount calculated by the method of allocating the cost of the commercial building according to the ratio of the sale area compared to the building area to the total construction cost in accordance with the National Tax Service's established rules governing the necessary expenses, and calculated the amount of income by the estimation method obtained by multiplying the income amount of the real estate sales business reported by the Plaintiff by the income standard rate, and imposed a surcharge of KRW 25,423,490 on January 16, 191 (the same shall apply in the case of the National Treasury Fractional Calculation Act) (the period of payment shall be 78,549,070 on February 1, 196). In addition, the Defendant issued a disposition to increase the amount of KRW 78,549,070 on February 1, 1996 (a dispute between the parties as to the fact that the calculated tax amount calculated by calculating the sale price of the commercial building by the National Tax Service's established rules is larger than the estimated tax amount calculated by the estimate taxation).

2. Whether the estimated taxation of this case is lawful

As to the defendant's assertion that the taxation disposition in this case, which is calculated by the income-based rate under the grounds for disposition and related Acts and subordinate statutes, is lawful, the plaintiff asserts that the process of the commercial building is a continuous process, and it is unlawful that the plaintiff's calculation of the cost of the commercial building should be based on the comprehensive cost method, since the cost of the commercial building is calculated separately, and that the method of allocating the cost of the building according to the ratio of the price of the commercial building sold in 191 out of the total estimated cost of sale is an estimated cost calculation method suitable for the sale of the commercial

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

Article 31 (1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4520 of Dec. 8, 1992; hereinafter the same) provides that the necessary expenses shall be included in the calculation of real estate income amount, business income amount, other income amount, transfer income amount, or forest income amount, the total sum of expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in the current year. Article 120 (1) provides that the Government shall investigate and determine the tax base and tax amount according to the standard rate of income by business type only when it is impossible to make a decision pursuant to the provisions of Articles 117 through 119 due to obvious objective reasons prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 169 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13540 of Dec. 31, 1991; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the following matters are clearly objective reasons:

(b) basic facts;

(1) After the Plaintiff newly built the instant commercial building and completed April 2, 1991, the sale was commenced. However, in 191, only 4 units, 2 units on the 1st floor, 3 units, and 9 units on the 4th floor, 2 units on the 4th floor, and 4th floor on the 1,068, 340,971, and the total area of 1,707,224,90 won for the total estimated sale at 868.622 square meters, which amounts to approximately 62.5 percent of the estimated total estimated sale price, which amounts to about 1,69.64 square meters.

(2) In filing a comprehensive income tax return on May 31, 1992, the Plaintiff reported KRW 1,068,704,553 among the revenues from the sale and purchase and lease of the instant commercial building; KRW 2,728,293; KRW 3,600,00 from the real estate rental business; and KRW 3,60,00 from the revenue from the parking lot business; the Plaintiff reported KRW 1,012,62,575, including KRW 894,424,05, among the necessary expenses for the real estate sales business, the Plaintiff reported KRW 1,012,62,575, including KRW 894,424,05, among the revenues from the real estate sales business reported by the Plaintiff (the Defendant did not dispute only on the income from the real estate sales business among the revenues from the real estate sales business reported by the Plaintiff; thus, the Plaintiff is limited to the real estate sales business based on the above reported details, and calculated the amount of tax paid to be paid.

(3) On June 1993, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to revise the contents of the report on the grounds that the sales cost was excessively appropriated, etc., and the Plaintiff filed a revised return on July 31, 1993 to KRW 1,068,340,917, and necessary expenses, and paid KRW 48,364,264 as global income tax after deducting the amount of the already paid tax from the amount of the global income tax calculated as KRW 65,305,903.

(4) On January 16, 1996, the Defendant denied the income amount of KRW 1,068,340,917 as reported by the Plaintiff on January 16, 1996 on the ground that the method of the construction cost calculated by the Plaintiff was unreasonable, and applied the income standard rate of KRW 176,276,251 to the necessary expenses, and calculated the income amount of KRW 90,729,401 as the final tax amount by applying the tax rate of KRW 50,729,40, and deducted the already paid tax amount from the final tax amount of KRW 25,423,490 after deducting the already paid tax amount. After that, on February 11, 1996, the Defendant adjusted the income standard rate of KRW 22.5, and the tax rate of KRW 169,278,474, respectively, by calculating the initial determined tax amount of KRW 169,549,70.

C. Determination

The real estate has a very strong characteristic for the reason that it has a geographical fixed position. Moreover, in the case of a commercial building on a large scale, the difference in utility value depending on the number of floors is significant, and the difference in utility value is general characteristics that extend the above floor to the upper floor and underground level as the standard for the first floor. Therefore, the cost calculation method of the commercial building on the building cannot be adopted, so it is necessary to determine the acquisition value of the commercial building on the basis of the comprehensive cost calculation method. Therefore, it is necessary to consider how to adopt a method of the comprehensive cost calculation method in order to properly calculate the taxpayer's financial status and the period of profit and loss and to meet the purpose of cost calculation. If the acquisition value of the commercial building is calculated by the simple comprehensive cost calculation method in accordance with the ratio of the actual cost to the total expected area claimed by the defendant, it is against the objective of cost calculation by adopting the cost calculation method in consideration of the difference in utility value of the commercial building on the first floor, and after the adoption of the cost calculation method for the commercial building on the second floor, it is impossible to calculate the total cost calculation method.

In particular, the application of the provisions of Article 58(1) of the Income Tax Act and Article 113(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is excluded in cases where the income tax is calculated based on the method stipulated in Article 82(2)2 of the Income Tax Act, which provides for the special cases concerning the calculation of global income tax on a real estate sales businessman with other global income other than the business income accruing from land sale, and where the income tax is calculated based on the said provisions, Article 58(2) of the Income Tax Act and Article 58(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which provides for the aggregate between the income accruing from the sale of land or buildings among income accruing from losses, and Article 113(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act excludes the application of such provisions (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1523, Nov. 26, 191). Therefore, in cases of this case where there are various items such as necessary expenses to be deducted from the sale price in order to calculate the tax amount pursuant to Article 82(2)2(2) of the Income Tax Act.

Therefore, as in this case, the cost for the unit reputation of each floor cannot be calculated by the individual cost method because the cost for the unit reputation of each floor cannot be calculated by the individual cost method, and the cost for the unit reputation of each floor is determined by the comprehensive cost calculation method suitable therefor. Therefore, the acquisition value of each floor shall be determined by the method of calculating the unit reputation of each floor using the detailed standard for utility value of each floor as the classification coefficient of the class figure of each floor and the price of each floor shall be determined based on its value (see Supreme Court Order 82Du1205, 1206, Sept. 30, 1982).

In addition, since the plaintiff submitted related books and documentary evidence in filing a return of the general income tax, the defendant based on this, the defendant was able to calculate the cost based on the standard rate solely on the ground that it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to calculate the cost even though the method of calculating the cost was made by the method of calculating the cost of the tobacco product cost as seen earlier. This does not fall under any of the requirements of the estimated tax under Article 120 of the Income Tax Act and Article 169 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful and thus the revocation of the whole disposition of this case cannot be avoided (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu182, Feb

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is revoked, and the plaintiff only seeks revocation of the disposition of this case exceeding 12,863,726 won among the disposition of this case. Accordingly, the defendant's disposition of this case is revoked as of February 16, 1996 exceeding 12,863,726 won of the disposition of this case against the plaintiff as of February 16, 1996, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff.