Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap36651 (2013.05)

early 2012west0513 (2012.08)

actual transaction value means the actual amount agreed upon for the payment itself or at the time of the transaction;

Since there exists a mutual agreement between the plaintiff and the transferee that the price indicated in the sales contract or tax invoice of the above building should be considered as the sales price of each building, it is reasonable to regard it as the actual transaction price of each building.

Article 106 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2013Nu13510 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

AAA, Inc.

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap36651 Decided April 5, 2013

October 31, 2013

November 14, 2013

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

On October 7, 2011, the Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of OO directors among the OO directors of value-added tax for the first year of 2007, OO directors of 2008, OO directors of value-added tax for the second year of 2009, OO directors among the OO directors of value-added tax for the second year of 2009, and OO directors among the OO directors of value-added tax for the first year of 2010.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant asserts that even if the value of land and a building under a sales contract is clearly divided into the value of the land and a building, if it is not a genuine agreement between the parties, or if it cannot be viewed as a reasonable classification by deviating from ordinary transaction practices, it falls under the case where the distinction between the value of the land and the value of the building, etc. is unclear. The plaintiff asserts that the value of the building stipulated in the tax invoice and the sales contract prepared by the plaintiff while selling each of the of the instant real estate is not a reasonable classification in light of the standard market price or the value of the building, and therefore, it constitutes a case where the distinction between the value of the land

However, Article 57(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the tax authority may determine or correct the tax base and amount of value-added tax only in cases where an entrepreneur fails to make an estimated or final return, or where the content of the return is erroneous or omitted, or where the value-added tax base and amount of value-added tax are likely to be evaded, etc. Accordingly, Article 57(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the determination or correction of the tax base and amount of value-added tax shall be made based on the tax invoice, revenue tax invoice, account book, or other supporting documents, or where the content of the tax is unclear, unless the tax invoice, revenue tax invoice, account book, or other supporting documents are missing, or where the content of the tax is unclear. The proviso to Article 48-2(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that where an entrepreneur supplies the land and a building built thereon together, the value of the building subject to value-added tax and the value of the land subject to non-taxation cannot be seen as a special provision for calculating the value of the building (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu 2).

Therefore, in this case where the value of the land and the building built on the land are divided into the tax invoice and the sales contract according to the party's will and the value of the land and the building are entered, in order to correct the value-added tax base and the tax amount reported by the plaintiff, by applying the proviso of Article 48-2 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, it should be recognized that the above supporting

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal shall not be accepted as groundless.