Cases where the purchase price was not settled but the assets were transferred;

Although the seller's payment of the balance of the purchase price of real estate is not settled under Article 53 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act because of the seller's failure to receive the balance of the purchase price, where the seller consented to the buyer to receive the loan by providing the above real estate as security to the bank, and the buyer fails to pay the loan and thereby the transfer of ownership is made by a successful bid

Articles 4, 27, the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act Article 53

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Head of Seogju Tax Office

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 8,757,930 and 1,751,580 for defense tax of KRW 1,751,580 against the plaintiff on March 15, 1986 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

8.3. 15. The defendant received the tax base return of 198. 8,75,930 won and the tax base return of 1,751,580 won and 40. 7. 8. 1. 80 won and the remaining 9. 10 won and 9. 7. 80 won and the remaining 9. 10 won and 9. 80 won and the remaining 9. 10 won and 9. 7. 80 won and 9. 10 won and 9. 10 won and 6. 7. 8 of the Income Tax Act, each of the above tax base return of 1. 40 won and 40 won and 9. 70 won and each of the above tax base return of 10 won and 9. 70 won and each of the above tax base return of 40 won and 9. 10 won and each of the above tax base return of 70 won and 9. 10 won. 7 won and 9. 1

The Plaintiff’s assertion that the above transfer price was not paid for KRW 2,50,00 among the above purchase price, and that the Defendant did not transfer the assets even if it was not transferred, is unlawful. Thus, the time of acquisition and transfer of the assets under Article 27 of the Income Tax Act shall be determined by the Presidential Decree. Accordingly, the time of acquisition and transfer under Article 53(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 27 of the same Act shall be the date of settlement of the price of the assets concerned, except for the following cases. 1. It is not clear that the sale price was paid for the above 7th day before the settlement of the purchase price, or that the above transfer price was not paid for the above 80th day after the above purchase price was paid for the above 10th day, and that the above transfer price was not paid for the above 10th day after the sale price was paid for the above 10th day after the sale price was paid for the above 9th day after the sale price was not paid for the above 10th day.

In calculating the tax amount of this case, the plaintiff asserts that the tax base should be the remainder after deducting necessary expenses, such as acquisition value, transfer income deduction amount, and special deduction amount of transfer income from the actual transfer value of the pertinent asset, but it is unlawful to calculate the tax amount at the market price without following it. Thus, the transfer and acquisition value under Articles 23(4) and 45(1) of the Income Tax Act shall be the amount at the market price at the time of transfer and acquisition of the relevant asset, and in exceptional cases as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it shall be the actual transaction price at the time of transfer and acquisition, and in case of transaction with a corporation under Article 170(4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, if the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition is confirmed, it shall be based on the actual transaction price. Thus, as the defendant is a transaction with the above Korea National Housing Corporation which is a corporation, it is reasonable to determine each transfer and acquisition value based on the market price at the base price, and to calculate the tax amount after deducting each deduction amount as stated in the attached Table 2

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the taxation disposition of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Don-hee (Presiding Judge) For the purpose of the Grand Order;