Seocho 2012west 1924 (Law No. 21, 2012)

The transaction example that is recognized as acquisition value shall be lawful and shall not be deducted from the brokerage commission and the interior expenses, etc. as necessary expenses.

The disposition agency recognized as the acquisition value is traded on the date near the date of acquisition of the at issue apartment, and the transaction value is in close vicinity to the average value of all transaction example transactions transacted for three months before and after the date of acquisition of the at issue apartment, and in calculating the acquisition value by transaction example, the brokerage commission and the test cost shall not be deducted from the necessary expenses.

2012Gu 29298 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

ThisAAA

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

June 12, 2013

July 10, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 000 on December 6, 201, which the Plaintiff rendered on December 6, 2011, is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 11, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired the sales right of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 0000 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) from thisB on March 11, 2003, paid the remainder of KRW 000 among the sales price of KRW 000 on March 24, 2003, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on May 13, 2003.

B. On April 21, 201, the Plaintiff transferred the instant apartment on April 21, 201, and reported that the acquisition value of the instant apartment on the 25th of the same month falls under KRW 000, and the transfer value of the instant apartment falls under KRW 000 or one house for one household (temporary two houses due to marriage), and the Defendant issued a correction and notification of capital gains tax amounting to KRW 000 on December 6, 201 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s spouse possesses two houses and is not subject to non-taxation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On February 23, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an objection, and on February 23, 2012, the Defendant corrected the tax base and tax amount by recognizing the acquisition value of the instant apartment as KRW 000, and on the Plaintiff’s appeal, and on September 21, 2012, the Tax Tribunal recognized the acquisition value of the instant apartment as 00 won and corrected the tax base and tax amount. Accordingly, the remainder of the capital gains tax imposed on the instant disposition is KRW 000.

[Grounds for recognition] A. 2.3.5 B. 1-1 to 1-3, and the purport of the entire pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The reasonable example of business example that should be applied as the acquisition value of the apartment of this case is KRW 000 or KRW 000. In addition, the brokerage commission required for the acquisition of the apartment of this case and KRW 000 of the interior cost of the above apartment should be deducted from the transfer value of the apartment of this case as necessary expenses. Therefore, the instant disposition taken on a different premise should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the transaction example recognized as the acquisition value of the apartment of this case is appropriate

Where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction value as at the time of acquisition of transferred assets, the value, namely, the transaction example value, if there is any transaction example of assets identical or similar to the relevant assets within three months before and after the acquisition date, and the transaction example (based on the reported amount by the National Tax Service) expressed in the transactions of apartment in the same apartment complex located in the same area as the apartment in this case within three months before and after the acquisition date of the apartment in this case are as follows (A 2 and 3). The above transaction example is more than two cases (00, 000, 000, 000, and 000, and 300, and the above transaction value is less than the average transaction value among the above 00,000,000 apartment houses and 00, and the above average transaction value is less than the above 00,000,000, and more than the acquisition value is less than the above 0,000, and more than the above 0,000,00.

(2) Whether the brokerage commission and the interior cost should be deducted as the necessary expense

Where the acquisition value is calculated by the example of business transactions, the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree is added to the example of business transactions and deemed necessary expenses [Article 97 (1) 1 (b) and (2) 2 of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 10580, Apr. 12, 201)], and “amount prescribed by Presidential Decree” in this case “the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree” is not included in brokerage commission and the test expenses [Article 163 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22950, Jun. 3, 2011)], and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the intermediary commission and the test expenses paid by the Plaintiff while acquiring the instant real estate are to be deducted from the necessary expenses is not acceptable (In addition, even if it is difficult to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff paid the intermediary commission and the test expenses in the form of one evidence, six-one, and two items and images alone).

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the instant disposition taken on the same premise is lawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.