Seoul Administrative Court-2013-Gu Group-2348 ( October 29, 2015)

Seocho 2012west 3106 ( November 19, 2012)

Application of wrongful calculation by transferring a person with a special relationship at a price lower than the market price.

The transfer of land to a person in a special relationship with the company at a price lower than the market price shall be subject to wrongful calculation, and land and buildings shall not be deemed to have been transferred en bloc.

Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act by Wrongful Calculation of Transfer Income Tax Act

2015Nu6198 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

tanks 00

00. Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court 2013Gudan22348 ( October 29, 2015)

December 2, 2016

on January 23, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 201 against the Plaintiff on April 23, 2012 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000,000 against the plaintiff on April 23, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on the instant case is to add the first instance court's decision as follows.

B. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

(a)No. 5 of the judgment of the first instance is letter 15, followed:

[Plaintiff asserted that when imposing corporate tax on the non-party company, the tax authority recognized the purchase price of the land and building in this case as not only KRW 000,000, but also KRW 00,000, the actual purchase price (including lease money). However, the wrongful calculation claimant merely denies the effects of the legal act agreed between the parties, not to deny the modification or extinguishment of the existing legal act, or imposing tax on the opposite party who received profits equivalent to the difference between the actual transfer price and the market price due to the low-price acquisition is done in accordance with separate provisions on the grounds that the tax authority imposed tax on the opposite party does not affect the validity of the avoidance of wrongful calculation. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit).

B. On September 24, 2009 and March 8, 2010, the first instance court’s △△△△△△△, which was recorded as the representative director, stated that the Plaintiff was not the representative director and the Plaintiff was the representative director, and the Plaintiff did not timely submit evidence on the conclusion and implementation of the sales contract, and changed the existing assertion in accordance with the newly submitted evidence. The newly submitted evidence is highly likely to have been prepared in accordance with the Plaintiff’s interests after the fact that the newly submitted evidence was made (No. 21 evidence No. 1 and No. 23, which the Plaintiff submitted at the first instance court, was submitted at the trial, and that the Plaintiff was the representative director, and that the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, which was recorded as the representative director, was written in the agreement and contract with the Plaintiff). Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff transferred the ownership transfer registration in the form of land and the building without compensation, in view of the fact that the Plaintiff transferred the land in question.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.