Whether the sale price of a house has been reported less than the actual price

In the event that a house is sold at a price less than the construction cost of the house, or that a house is sold at a price less than the amount of a bond secured on a house and the amount of a bond refunded is in violation of the empirical rule, the disposition determined and imposed on the basis of the meta of a person in charge of sale is legitimate.

Article 13 (Tax Base of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 21 (Determination and Correction of Value-Added Tax Act)

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 value-added tax for the first period of January 2003 against the Plaintiff on September 5, 2006, of KRW 7,845,610, value-added tax for the second period of two years of 2003, KRW 13,484,40, value-added tax for the second period of 204, KRW 14,565,030, value-added tax for the second period of 2004, KRW 70,075,840, value-added tax for the second period of 2004, KRW 1,862,490, global income tax for the year 203, KRW 16,90,480, total of KRW 124,823,850, is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In 203 and 2004, the Plaintiff, a business operator operating the Housing Construction and Sales Business, newly built and sold 15 units of 4 multi-household 15 units on the ground of 4 units, including ○○-6, etc. (hereinafter “instant houses”), and filed a return of value-added tax and comprehensive income tax, only 120,000,000 won as the sales price of 2 units out of the said houses sold in 203.

B. As a result of the investigation of the sales price of the instant housing, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff omitted a total of KRW 1,129,497,482 in 203 and 2004. On September 5, 2006, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing the Plaintiff the value-added tax of KRW 7,845,610 in 203, value-added tax of KRW 13,484,484,40 in 203, value-added tax of KRW 14,565,030 in 204, value-added tax of KRW 70,75,840 in 204, value-added tax of KRW 70,75,840 in 204, global income tax of KRW 1,862,490 in 203, global income tax of KRW 1,862,90 in 204, global income tax of KRW 16,990 in 204.

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination on April 18, 2007 by raising an objection, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on December 13, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 7, Eul evidence 1-1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The sum of the sales price of the instant housing is KRW 740,00,000, as seen in the following table 1, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition on the premise that the sum of the sales price of the instant housing is KRW 1,236,00,000, with outing a sales contract or written confirmation, etc., and on the premise that it is the sum of the sales price of the instant housing was KRW 1,236,00

(b) Related statutes;

Article 13 (Tax Base of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 21 (Determination and Correction of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 48 (Calculation of Tax Base of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 48-2 (Method of Calculating Tax Base)

Article 14 (Calculation of Tax Base of Income Tax)

Article 80 (Determination and Correction of Income Tax Act)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) A person who actually was in charge of the construction and sale of the instant housing is not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff’s father, the Plaintiff’s father, and the highest school prepared and submitted to the Defendant a medal of the contents as indicated below in the Defendant’s tax investigation process with respect to the Plaintiff.

(2) At the time of the Defendant’s tax investigation into the Plaintiff on July 1, 2006, the documents confirming that there is no documentary evidence to verify the sales price of the housing purchased by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff; the State 00,000 won from the Plaintiff on November 11, 2003, the documents confirming that the Plaintiff acquired KRW 101,00,000 from the purchase price 67,000 (acquisition of loans and KRW 32,000,000,000). The previous order of KRW 201,000,000,000 won from the Plaintiff on June 13, 2003, KRW 201,75,000 (no real estate sales contract) were acquired from the Plaintiff on June 13, 2006, KRW 301,0000,0000,000 won on the aggregate of KRW 137,000,0000,000,000 won,000 won were written confirmation No.

(3) The buyer mentioned in the table 1 acquired the contract by succeeding the status of the obligor of each contract to establish a mortgage after completing the registration of ownership transfer in his name, as shown below. In particular, in the case of the right to collateral security, each purchaser succeeded to the status of the obligor of each contract to establish a mortgage after completing the registration of ownership transfer in his name.

[Ground of recognition] Eul evidence 3-1 to 4, Eul evidence 4-1 to 6, Eul evidence 5-1 to 15, Eul's witness's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts. ① The Plaintiff’s assertion that the sum of the purchase price of the land and the total construction cost of the instant housing was KRW 1,259,70,00,000. The Plaintiff’s sales price of the instant housing is more than 500 million is contrary to the empirical rule. ② Ma○, as stated in Table 3, with respect to the housing purchased from the Plaintiff, the sum of the maximum purchase price of the instant housing established at the time of completion of the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff, and the total amount of the deposit for lease (20 million won; 250,000,000 won) exceeds the maximum purchase price of the instant housing, and it is difficult to find that the actual sales price of the said housing was more than the aggregate of the maximum purchase price of the instant housing and the deposit for repayment of the purchase price of the purchase price of the instant housing, and ③ The Defendant’s new construction and determination of the remaining portion of the purchase price of the instant housing that was written by the Plaintiff to the Defendant at the time of the instant tax investigation was written out of the purchase price of each of the instant housing.

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.