District Court-2015-Gu Group-5601 ( December 28, 2016)

Disposition that is imposed at the conversion value because the objective acquisition value is not verified at the time of determining a person who has filed a transfer tax return;

(As with the judgment of the first instance court), the plaintiff filed a non-report on the capital gains tax, and the materials presented as acquisition value are not accompanied by objective evidence, and other specific and objective supporting materials are not presented. In addition, the plaintiff failed to present the specific and objective supporting materials by which the acquisition value can be known, and if the real acquisition value is unclear, it shall be determined as the conversion value and disposition

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income)

2017Nu3215 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Park AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Gudan5601 Decided December 28, 2016

December 20, 2017

January 24, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The part of the Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 1,169,330,610 against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2014, which exceeds KRW 599,062,212, out of the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 1,169,330,

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except to supplement or add the judgment as follows 2. Thus, this court's judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Supplement and addition of judgments;

The Plaintiff asserts as follows. The instant land sales contract is a co-owner of the instant land, which is a form of the instant land, and leD has been concluded with leE by delegating all the authority over the sales contract to leE, and thus, the sales contract is genuinely established, and it can be believed sufficient. The Plaintiff was holding cash and checks sufficient to purchase the instant land. On August 10, 2004, immediately after August 10, 2004, when the remaining payment date under the instant land sales contract was set as the date of the remainder payment, the Plaintiff’s purchase price for the instant land was KRW 60 million out of the sales price corresponding to 1.8 billion out of the sales price corresponding to 1/3 shares of leE’s 1/3 of the co-owner of the instant land. According to the development situation of adjacent land and its details, the Plaintiff’s purchase price for the instant land should be confirmed as KRW 1.8 billion in the amount of the instant land at the time the Plaintiff acquired the instant land.

According to the statement of evidence No. 31, the defendant's disposition of this case calculated capital gains tax on the conversion price of the acquisition price is legitimate, since it is difficult to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition of the land of this case and it is difficult to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition of the land of this case, since the fact and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone were judged by the court of first instance.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.