The legitimacy of the assertion that the imposition of capital gains tax is improper by changing the method of report.

Under the tax law, penalty taxes cannot be imposed on justifiable grounds that are not attributable to a taxpayer's failure to perform his/her duty, and thus, it cannot be deemed a justifiable ground, inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove that calculating the officially announced value after the short-term transfer within one year.

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

Article 96 (Value of Transfer)

Article 115 (Additional Tax on Transfer Income Tax of the Gu)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Of the capital gains tax assessment made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on December 5, 2007, the part of the additional tax on negligent tax returns of KRW 3,122,02,02, and additional tax on additional tax on additional tax for arrears shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 2, 2003, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 4,671 square meters prior to 00,000,000,000 for 490,000,000 and completed the registration of ownership on the 18th day of the same month.

B. Of the above land, the same Ri 6-1 square meters prior to 0,000 square meters and 6-2 square meters prior to 0,000,000 00 square meters prior to 6-1,000 square meters prior to 0,000, was re-divided into 6-1 square meters prior to 6-1, 375 square meters prior to 6-3, preceding 6-3 square meters prior to 6-4, and 521 square meters prior to 6-4, respectively.

C. On April 7, 2004, the Plaintiff sold to ○○○○○, 6-3 2,277 m2, and 1/2 m2 of the same Ri6-4 m20 m2 (hereinafter referred to as the instant real property as the instant real property by combining the said land) in KRW 160,000,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 16th of the same month.

D. On April 30, 2004, the Plaintiff calculated gains on transfer from the sale of the instant real estate by using the officially assessed individual land price as the transfer value (i.e., the transfer value of KRW 15,500,000 - acquisition value of KRW 11,94,762). The Plaintiff determined and paid capital gains tax of KRW 452,358 as the tax base.

E. The Defendant calculated gains on transfer according to the actual transaction value (i.e., the transfer value of KRW 160,000,000 - Acquisition value of KRW 91,809,193) on the ground that the instant real estate sales contract constitutes a transfer risk within one year after its acquisition, and determined and notified the Plaintiff on December 5, 2007, as its tax base, KRW 44,372,00,00, including additional tax on negligent tax returns of KRW 3,122,02, additional tax on additional tax of KRW 8,907,202.

F. On February 25, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on February 25, 2008, alleging that the above disposition of imposition of capital gains tax was unreasonable, but the decision of dismissal was

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 8 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including above number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

In light of the fact that: (a) around 2003 when the Plaintiff reported the tax base, it was a practice of calculating the transfer value by the public announcement; and (b) the Plaintiff requested a tax accountant who is a tax specialist in sunset to return and pay transfer income tax; and (c) the Defendant also issued a disposition imposing transfer income tax on the Plaintiff around April 30, 2004 when three years have passed since the Plaintiff reported the tax base of transfer income tax on October 2007; (d) the Plaintiff filed an objection; and (e) revised the disposition imposing the said transfer income tax on December 5, 2007; and (e) accordingly, the Defendant’s disposition imposing the said disposition imposing the transfer income tax on the Plaintiff, which was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 96 (Value of Transfer)

Article 115 (Additional Tax on Transfer Income Tax of the Gu)

C. Determination

(1) In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed under the conditions as prescribed by individual tax law in cases where a taxpayer violates various duties, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and the taxpayer’s intent or negligence is not considered. However, in cases where it is unreasonable for a taxpayer to be unaware of his/her duties or where there is a circumstance that it is unreasonable for him/her to expect the performance of his/her duties to be fulfilled, etc., and where there is a justifiable reason not to mislead the taxpayer into neglecting his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu14602, May 16, 1997; 2001Du403, Sept. 5, 2003).

(2) First of all, under Article 96(1) proviso of the former Income Tax Act, where real estate is transferred within one year after it is acquired, the transfer value of the relevant asset shall be based on the actual transaction value between the transferor and transferee rather than on the standard market price at the time of transfer of the relevant asset. Nevertheless, insofar as the Plaintiff calculated the tax base based on the transfer value calculated based on the standard market price, not on the actual transaction value, and paid only the amount calculated based on it, it is legitimate for the Defendant to recognize the Plaintiff’s failure to report and pay the tax and impose

(3) On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that it was a practice of calculating the transfer value by the publicly announced price in around 2003 when the Plaintiff reported the tax base. Moreover, the reason that the Plaintiff filed a transfer income tax by requesting a well-known tax accountant to return and pay the transfer income tax, or that the Defendant partly accepted and corrected the Plaintiff’s objection after three years from the date on which the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer income tax, cannot be deemed as a justifiable reason that the Plaintiff filed a tax base lower return than the original tax base and paid the transfer income tax, and that the Defendant partly accepted and corrected the transfer income tax.

Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.