Seocho-2015- Busan District Court-763 (Law No. 15, 31 August 2015)

The acquisition value is calculated by applying the officially assessed individual land price at the time of acquisition, even if the land was acquired and used.

At the time of the acquisition of land, the land category was officially assessed as forest land and land category was changed to land for a factory after 11 months, so it cannot be deemed that there was no officially assessed land price, and the officially assessed land price should be applied at the

Article 99 (Calculation of Standard Market Price) of the Income Tax Act

2015Guhap1636 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

00. Head of tax office

July 7, 2016

July 28, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Of the imposition of capital gains tax of 00,000,000 and total of 000,000,000 capital gains tax of 2013 and special rural development tax of 200,000,000, the Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of 00,000,000 and special rural development tax of 00,000,000 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is for the purpose of constructing a factory, the forest land of 00 U.S. 00 U.S. 00 U.S. 00 U.S. 00 U.S. 00

The purchase of 0,00 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "purchase of this case") was made on October 0, 200, the registration conversion was made on the same Ri 000-0 forest and 0,000 square meters on the same day, divided the above land into 00-0 square meters on the same Ri, and on October 0, 2000, the above remaining 000-0 square meters on the land (0,000 square meters) were a factory building (hereinafter referred to as "this case").

The construction of a new factory building began, and on October 0, 200, the land category of the above land was changed to the factory site.

B. On October 0, 2009, the Plaintiff included the site for the instant factory building in the land with the above 000-1 parcel number

The area of 0,000 square meters was divided into 00-0 square meters per annum (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and 000 square meters per annum, including the instant factory building, were divided into 00-0 square meters per annum.

C. On October 0, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred each of the instant real estate to BB on the ground of expropriation, and on October 0, 2013, upon filing a transfer income tax report, the Plaintiff alleged that the actual acquisition value of the instant land was unknown, and that there was no officially assessed individual land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act (hereinafter “individual land price”) at the time the Plaintiff acquired the land, and that there was no officially assessed individual land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act (hereinafter “individually assessed individual land price”) at the time of changing the form and quality of the forest from the forest to the factory site, and filed a return on KRW 00,000,000 calculated by applying the officially assessed individual land price publicly announced on October 0, 200 as the standard market price, and as regards the instant factory building, KRW 00,000,00

D. On October 0, 199, the Defendant: (a) applied the officially assessed individual land price of KRW 00,000,000,000, which was publicly announced as of October 0, 199, to the instant land as the standard market price (hereinafter “instant conversion amount”); (b) as to the instant factory building, KRW 00,000,000 obtained by subtracting the depreciation costs calculated as the necessary expenses for business income from the initially reported conversion price; and (c) on October 0, 2014, notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff corrected the amount of KRW 00,000,000,000, including the capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 and the special rural development tax of KRW 0,000,000,000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff filed an objection on October 0, 2014, but on October 0, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection.

This was dismissed, and on October 0, 2014, the Tax Tribunal filed an administrative appeal, but on October 0, 2015

The Tribunal dismissed it.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the whole pleadings

purport of this chapter

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The conversion amount of this case was calculated by mistake for the following reasons, and the part which exceeds the legitimate tax amount among the dispositions of this case premised on the erroneous conversion amount should be revoked by mistake.

1) At the time of the acquisition of the instant land, there was a publicly assessed individual land price, but at the time of the acquisition of the instant land, the said land was already developed as a land for a factory, and thus, it should be based on the publicly assessed individual land price that was designated as the land for a factory. Since such publicly assessed individual land price did not exist, the said land was land without a publicly assessed individual land price at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition. Accordingly, the acquisition

2) Even if not, the actual acquisition value of the instant land should be recognized as KRW 00 million as indicated in the standard balance sheet of 2005 by TaeCCC, a business chain operated by the Plaintiff on the instant land.

3) If the acquisition value is calculated based on the land category of the instant land, as the converted amount, as seen in the instant case, based on the forest land category, the amount of civil construction cost incurred by the Plaintiff to change the land category to the land for a factory should also be recognized as necessary expenses.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

1) After the purchase of the instant case on October 0, 199, the Plaintiff acquired the construction permission from the head of DD on October 0, 1999, and entered into a construction contract with the FF Construction Corporation on December 10, 199.

2) The officially assessed individual land price of the instant land is one square meter per square meter, 0,020 won as of October 0, 1999, and 0,000.

00,000 won as base.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) In calculating capital gains tax, the acquisition value as necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value is the acquisition of assets.

the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition shall be based on the actual transaction price, and it shall be impossible to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition.

any transaction example, appraisal value, or conversion value prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be

[Article 97 (1) 1 (a) and (b), and Article 114 (7) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12169, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the "former Income Tax Act") / [Article 97 (1) 1 (a) and (b), and Article 114 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26067, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act") delegated by the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act / Where it is impossible to verify the actual transaction price, the above actual transaction price shall be the value in cases where there is a sale case of assets having the identity or similarity of the relevant assets within three months before and after the date of acquisition; (2) where the appraisal price is deemed reliable as it is appraised by two or more appraisal corporations on the relevant assets within the above period, the average value of such appraisal price calculated according to the official standard market price below (the acquisition price in the order of the defendant's.

In addition, the "standard market price" in the above official formula shall be based on the officially assessed individual land price in case of land, and the price of land for which no officially assessed individual land price exists shall be the amount assessed by the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment in accordance with the method prescribed by the Presidential Decree in consideration of the officially assessed individual land price

2) First, in the calculation of the actual transaction price of the purchase of this case, health expenses and gains on transfer

actual transaction value as a basis means the general market value that reflects objective exchange values;

not the actual transaction price itself or at the time of the transaction, but the actual amount agreed upon as the price for the transaction;

“B” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du7171, Apr. 26, 2007).

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff claimed that KRW 00 million was the actual transaction value on the standard balance sheet of TaecCC in 2005 on the ground that it was stated as KRW 00,000,000, but that it was stated at the point of six years after the purchase date of this case, and that the Plaintiff reported capital gains tax based on the conversion price under the premise that the actual transaction value cannot be known at the time of purchase of this case, it is difficult to view that KRW 00,00

3) Even if the actual transaction value is unknown, the transaction case value, two or more appraisals:

Where there is the average value of appraisal prices of an evaluation corporation, the evaluation corporation shall comply with it; Provided, That the sales cases or appraisal;

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge the average value of the pertinent land, the acquisition price of the instant land in accordance with the aforementioned formula.

The amount should be converted.

The plaintiff asserts that the transfer income tax should be calculated by applying the retroactive appraisal value of KRW 00,000,000,000 at the time when the plaintiff purchased 00,000 square meters of Ulsan-gun 00,000 forest land at the time of the purchase of the land, or KRW 00,000,000, the retroactive appraisal value of around October 2000 at the time when the plaintiff changed the land to a factory site, as the result of the appraisal commission by the appraiser Gangwon-do court.

However, in light of the above legal principles and the language, content and purport of the relevant provisions, etc.

(1) A transaction example, appraisal value, or conversion value which is not the original actual transaction value;

Article 97 (1) 1 (b) of the former Income Tax Act that substitutes the actual transaction price of the Si;

Article 163 (12) of the Enforcement Decree of the Tax Act, etc. shall substitute the actual transaction price as well as the order of application thereof.

The type of value is also interpreted as having provided that the requirements are set and limited.

Article 97 of the former Income Tax Act shall apply to the value assessed by an appraisal conducted retroactively at the time of acquisition after the fact.

The appraisal value determined to substitute the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition under paragraph (1) 1 (b).

It is reasonable to deem that the relevant case does not fall under the category of subparagraph (Supreme Court Decision 2011Du24286 Decided October 15, 2015)

[Reference]

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit to examine further.

4) In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that there was no officially assessed individual land price for the instant land at the time of the purchase of the instant land, but the land category of the instant land was forest as at the time of the purchase of the instant land, and there was a officially assessed individual land price based on such land category. After the purchase of the instant land, DD Gun’s construction permission, construction contract, construction commencement, etc. were conducted in order, and eventually, approximately 11 months have elapsed from the purchase date, and the land category of the instant land was changed to a factory site as seen earlier. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no officially assessed individual land price for the instant land at

5) Lastly, the Plaintiff should also recognize the cost of civil construction as necessary expenses other than the acquisition value.

The Plaintiff asserted that the contract was concluded with FF Construction Co., Ltd. on October 0, 199 with the FF Construction Co., Ltd. on the part of FFF Construction Co., Ltd. on the part of FF Construction Co., Ltd. on the part of FF Construction Co., Ltd. (the Plaintiff claimed that civil works were performed). However, the written evidence No. 3 alone is insufficient to find that the Plaintiff paid all KRW 00,000,000 to FF Construction Co., Ltd. on the part of FF Construction Co., Ltd. on the part of FF Construction Co., Ltd. on the part of FF Construction Co., Ltd., and the detailed contents of the construction claimed as

6) Ultimately, the instant disposition that deemed only the amount converted into the instant case as necessary expenses is justifiable.

3. Conclusion

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