Determination of the transfer value and acquisition value of real estate

Where a compensation for damage is included in the acquisition price, the whole acquisition price shall not be deemed the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition, so the transfer price and acquisition price shall be calculated based on the

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the instant disposition

다음 사실은 당사자들 사이에 다툼이 없거나, 갑제1호증, 갑제3 내지 6호증, 갑제7호증의 1,2, 갑제8호증, 갑제9호증의 1,2, 을제1호증의 1,2, 을제2호증의 각 기재와 증인 오ㅇㅇ화의 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 이를 인정할 수 있고, 이 인정에 어긋나는 을제3호증의 2의 일부 기재는 믿지 아니하며, 달리 반증이 없다.

원고는 1988.12.26. 소외 박ㅇㅇ와의 사이에 원고 소유인 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ, ㅇㅇ번지 양 지상 ㅇㅇ상가 라동 201호 연건평 487.57㎡(이하 목욕탕 건물이라 한다)를 금 5억 3,000만원으로, 위 박ㅇㅇ 소유의 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 대 196.7㎡ 및 그 지상 연와조 스라브즙 2층 주택 및 점포 연면적 227.44㎡(이하 이 사건 부동산이라 한다)를 금 2억 5,000만원으로 각 평가하여 교환하기로 하는 교환계약을 맺으면서, 위 목욕탕 건물에 관하여 원고가 지고 있는 채무 금 2억 5,830만원과 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 위 박ㅇㅇ가 지고 있는 채무 금 1,800만원은 각 교환 후의 신소유자들이 면책적으로 인수하기로 하고, 그 차액 금 3,970만원은 위 박ㅇㅇ가 원고에게 같은 날 계약금으로 금 2,000만원을 지급하고 잔금 1,970만원은 1989.1.30. 지급하기로 약정하였다. 그리하여 위 박ㅇㅇ는 위 계약 당일 원고에게 위 계약금 2,000만원을 지급하였고, 잔금은 그 약정일보다 빠른 1988.12.말경 원고에게 지급하고 각각 그 소유권이전등기에 필요한 서류를 교환하여, 위 박ㅇㅇ는 목욕탕 건물에 관하여 1988.12.31. 그 등기원인을 1988.9.15. 매매로 하여 소유권이전등기를 마쳤고, 원고는 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 1989.1.17. 그 등기원인을 1988.12.31. 매매로 하여 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다.

위 박ㅇㅇ는 1989.1.12.경 원고로부터 목욕탕 건물을 명도받아 목욕탕을 운영하기 시작하였으나 목욕탕 내의 방수가 제대로 되지 않고 영업실적이 좋지 아니하자 원고에게 위 교환계약의 해제 및 손해배상을 요구하였다. 그러나, 원고는 이미 이 사건 부동산을 담보로 대출을 받은 뒤라서 원상회복을 시켜줄 수 없었기 때문에 1989.5.초 위 박ㅇㅇ와의 사이에 위 교환계약을 합의해제하여 목욕탕 건물은 원고 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 환원시키고 이 사건 부동산은 원고가 새로 매수하는 것으로 하되, 목욕탕 하자로 인한 손해배상금을 포함하여 금 3억 3,500만원을 위 박ㅇㅇ에게 지급하기로 약정하고, 그 무렵 위 박ㅇㅇ에게 위 금원을 모두 지급하고 목욕탕 건물에 관하여 원고 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다.

그 뒤 원고는 1993.8.14. 소외 김ㅇㅇ 외 1인에게 이 사건 부동산을 금 4억 3,500만원에 양도하고, 1994.1.경 이 사건 부동산의 양도일을 1993.12.3. 양도가액을 4억 3,500만원, 취득일을 1988.12.25. 취득가액을 3억 3,500만원으로 하여 그에 따른 양도소득세를 산정하여 양도차익 예정신고 및 자진납부를 하였다.

However, on November 16, 1994, the Defendant calculated the transfer margin of the real estate of this case according to the standard market price on the ground that the acquisition value reported by the Plaintiff as the actual transaction value is different from the fact in making a preliminary return on the gains from transfer of assets, and imposed the transfer income tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

With respect to the Defendant’s assertion that the disposition of this case is legitimate in accordance with the grounds for disposition and related Acts and subordinate statutes, since the transfer value and acquisition value reported by the Plaintiff at the time of filing a preliminary return of gains from transfer of assets are all actual transaction values, the disposition of this case, which is calculated based on the standard market price, is different from fact, and thus, the disposition of this case, which is calculated based on the standard market price, cannot be recognized as the above 335 million won, and even if the acquisition value of the real estate of this case is calculated based on the standard market price, the time of acquisition shall not be December 25, 1988, but shall be deemed the time of acquisition, not January 30, 1989, which is the date of the initial exchange contract, or the date of the outstanding payment agreement under the original exchange contract, and shall be deemed as the cancellation of the above exchange contract and the new purchase of the real estate of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case is erroneous by understanding the acquisition

(b) Review of relevant statutes;

Article 23 (1) 1, (2), (4) 1, and Article 45 (1) 1 (a) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14083, Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Article 170 (4) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14083, Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply), shall be calculated on the basis of the standard market price at the time of the transfer of the relevant asset, and the transfer value shall be calculated on the basis of the standard market price at the time of the transfer of the relevant asset: Provided, That in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, the transfer value shall be calculated on the basis of the standard market price at the time of the acquisition of the relevant asset, but the transfer value shall be calculated on the basis of the actual transaction price at the time of the acquisition of the relevant asset, as one of the cases where the transferor can verify the actual transaction price at the time of transfer report.

Meanwhile, according to Article 170(1) of the Decree, when one of the transfer values or acquisition values is determined based on the actual market price, the other is determined based on the actual market price, and if either of them is determined based on the standard market price, the other is in principle determined based on the standard market price. However, only in exceptional cases such as the case of Article 170(4)2, only one of the transfer values or acquisition values can be confirmed based on the actual market price, the other is determined based on the price converted by the method provided in the above provision.

In addition, in calculating gains on transfer of assets pursuant to Article 27 of the Act and Article 53 (1) of the Decree, the time of acquisition and transfer shall, in principle, be the date of liquidation of the price of the assets in question, and if the date of liquidation is unclear, it shall be the date of the balance payment agreement entered in the sales contract, but if the date of the balance payment agreement is not confirmed or the period from the date of the balance payment agreement entered in the sales contract to the date of receipt of registration exceeds one month, it shall be the date

C. Determination

Article 23(1)1 and (4)1 of the Act and Article 45(1)1 (a) of the Decree and Article 170(4)3 of the Decree declare that the standard market price was converted from the existing principle in calculating transfer margin in cases where a parcel of land or a building is transferred. Thus, in cases where a parcel of land or a building is transferred, there is no preliminary return or final return on transfer margin of assets, or no evidentiary document is submitted at the time of the report, or where it is confirmed that only one of the acquisition value or transfer value, which is the supporting document submitted at the time of the report, is confirmed, and where it is recognized that the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition and transfer is not verifiable, even if the subsequent actual transaction price is confirmed, it shall be calculated based on the standard market price, and it shall not be based on the actual transaction price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu580, Jun. 13, 195; 194Nu1389, Dec. 13, 1994).

As to the instant case, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant real estate and the preliminary return of the transfer margin, reported the acquisition value of the instant real estate to 335 million won, and submitted the evidence as evidence thereof. However, the above 335 million won included damages due to bath defects which are the object of the original exchange contract, as seen earlier, the above amount cannot be recognized as the actual transaction value at the time of acquiring the instant real estate. Thus, the transfer of the instant real estate does not constitute an exceptional case of calculating transfer margin based on the actual transaction value under Article 170(4)3 of the Decree, and the actual transaction value at the time of the transfer of the instant real estate is not confirmed by documentary evidence submitted at the time of the preliminary return of the transfer margin (Evidence A5), but the actual transaction value at the time of the preliminary return of the transfer margin can be confirmed by the actual transaction value, but it cannot be confirmed by the actual transaction value, but the Plaintiff’s assignment price cannot be determined by the standard market price under the main sentence of Article 170(1) of the Decree.

한편, 원고와 위 박ㅇㅇ와의 사이의 당초의 교환계약 당시 잔금지급약정일은 19891.30.이었으나 그보다 빨리 1988.12.말경에 잔금이 모두 청산되어 각각 그 소유권이전등기에 필요한 서류를 교환하였음은 앞서 본 바와 같으므로, 이 사건 부동산의 취득시기는 위 잔금청산일인 1988.12.말경으로 보아야 하지 당초의 잔금지급약정일이나 등기접수일 또는 위 교환계약의 합의해제후 이 사건 부동산을 새로 매수하기로 한 날로 볼 수는 없다 할 것이니, 이와 다른 견해를 전제로 하는 원고의 이 부분 주장도 이유 없다.

In addition, there is no other data to find any illegality in the disposition of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground that the disposition of this case was unlawful is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.