National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2011-0165 (Law No. 15, 2011)

acquisition of real estate from the previous registered titleholder.

Although the same claimant of the previous registered titleholder asserts that the amount of debt repayment to the actual owner of the real estate should be additionally recognized as acquisition value, in light of the fact that a collateral security with an obligor is established and interest thereon is paid by the registered titleholder, and that the actual purchase price has been paid to the registered titleholder, it is recognized that real estate has been acquired from

2011Guhap10240 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

The director of the tax office

April 27, 2012

June 8, 2012

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 000 for the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 201 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired each land and its ground gas station building (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant real estate”) located in 200, 000, 000, and 000, which was owned by the largestB, but sold the said real estate at KRW 000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 2, 2009. The Plaintiff, on May 11, 2009, 000, calculated the transfer value of the instant real estate at KRW 00, and the acquisition value at KRW 000, to the Defendant for the tax base of transfer income accrued in 2009.

B. However, as a result of the on-site investigation, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 000 of the transfer income tax for 2009 on April 1, 201, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground that the amount of debt repayment to the least BD, which is the birth of the largest BB, does not constitute real acquisition value (=00 won -00 won) and the acquisition value of the said real estate was 00 won. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request for examination to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on April 5, 2011, but on July 15, 2011.

The above claim was dismissed.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Around August 2002, LB acquired the instant real estate from the Maximum DD and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate from the Maximum DD and took over KRW 000 out of the loan obligations to the Maximum CTR Bank Co., Ltd. in lieu of the payment of the purchase price, and paid KRW 000 to the Maximum BB as the acquisition cost of the said real estate by paying 00 won by subrogation or payment, and exempting the Maximum DD from its obligation to the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 00 is deemed not included in the acquisition value of the instant real estate, and thus, imposed the increase in capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff, who is the person before the registration, and is in violation of the principle of substantial taxation.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to Gap 2, Eul 4, and 8 (including household numbers) and some testimony of the MaximumCC, the plaintiff (i) filed a lawsuit against Suwon District Court Decision 2006hap127 against the MaximumB and MaximumD on January 1, 2006 against the plaintiff, and "the plaintiff purchased the above real estate from the largest D on October 2004 and paid the purchase price in full, the maximum BB, the registered titleholder of the above real estate, is liable to perform each procedure for the transfer registration of the above real estate to the plaintiff, and (ii) the plaintiff is not obliged to perform the procedure for transfer registration of the above real estate to the Maximum BD on the ground that it was not required to obtain the ownership transfer registration of the above real estate from the Maximum 2, 2006, and that it was not required to obtain the ownership transfer registration of the above real estate from the Maximum DB on the ground that it was not required to obtain the ownership registration of the above real estate from the 20BD on the ground that it was transferred.

(2) The plaintiff asserts that, around August 2002, the maximumB had sold the real estate of this case to the maximum 00 won, and that, around September 3, 2002, the maximum 00 won was actually acquired by the plaintiff 2 through the establishment of the right to collateral security and 00 won loan to the National Bank, and that, at least B, the above real estate was actually purchased by the plaintiff 1 through 3, 5 through 12, and 13 (including virtual number), and that, after the establishment of the above right to collateral security, the part of the testimony of the witness 2, which were recognized by the entire pleadings, were 0.3, 00, 1, 200, 200, 200, 200, 20, 200, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 30, 30, 20, 20, 20, 3, 30, 3, 3, 3, and 3.

(3) The following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, i.e., ① at the time of the Defendant’s on-site investigation, the mostB stated that “the amount received from the Plaintiff in relation to the transfer of the real estate in this case is 000 won in full, and is a credit and obligation between the Plaintiff and the least DD, and, as a result, the transfer amount of the real estate in this case was 000 won in fact, reported the tax base of transfer income. ② The mostD borrowed money from the Plaintiff around October 2004 at the time of the Defendant’s on-site investigation and stated that the Plaintiff would transfer the real estate in this case if it is unable to repay the debt, but thereafter, the Plaintiff agreed not to do so with respect to the real estate in this case while settling the remaining debts with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the real estate in this case by transfer from the least BB, the former registered titleholder, and the amount paid by the Plaintiff as the acquisition cost of the real estate in this case, is 000 won.

(4) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition that corrected the increase in the relevant transfer income tax against the Plaintiff is lawful, deeming that the Plaintiff’s repayment of KRW 000 to the maximum D is not included in the acquisition value of the instant real estate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.