Seocho 209west 1275 ( October 23, 2009)

Whether the assertion that it does not constitute a non-business land since it was used as land for parking lot is justifiable

The fact that the parking lot operating business is not registered, the value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax on the parking fee following the following day of the request for judgment is reported after the due date, the airline's parking management first place is not visible, and the basic documentary evidence related to the parking lot operation is not presented.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 294,365,647 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on August 4, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. On April 27, 1998, the Plaintiff owned 163.5 square meters of the land site ○○○○○○-dong 964-3, 163.5 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) by inheritance from the husband, and transferred 80,000,000 won to the non-B and the non-five persons on April 25, 2007. After the Plaintiff transferred the instant land, the Plaintiff made a voluntary report to the Defendant on May 11, 2007, based on the standard market price, the transfer value was KRW 446,35,00,000 according to the standard market price, and the acquisition value was calculated as KRW 215,820,00 according to the inherited property value, and paid KRW 39,476,890 of the capital gains tax by voluntary report to the Defendant.

B. On August 9, 2007, the Defendant issued a notice of increase in capital gains tax of 12,09,271 won to the Plaintiff by applying the special long-term holding deduction (the first revised disposition), and the Plaintiff paid the said tax amount. On August 4, 2008, the Defendant calculated capital gains tax based on the actual transaction price on the ground that the instant land constitutes non-business land and applied the tax rate of 317,50,340 (including KRW 23,134,693, additional tax of 5,204,893) by applying the tax rate of 60% to the Plaintiff (the second revised disposition).

C. The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the second correction and filed an objection against the defendant. The defendant partially accepted the plaintiff's objection on December 12, 2008, and corrected the additional tax on negligent tax returns 23,134,693 to the plaintiff on August 4, 2008 (including additional tax 5,204,893 won). Thus, the transfer income tax for the year 2007, which the defendant finally made to the plaintiff on August 4, 2008, was 294,365,647 won (including additional tax 5,204,893 won); hereinafter referred to as "disposition

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap's 2,8,11,12 evidence, Eul's 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether a disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the instant land was purchased as a residential housing site and used as a parking lot, it is not a non-business land. In addition, it is inappropriate to pay an additional tax due to the fact that it did not know of the payment of the tax notified due to the increase or revision. Therefore, the instant disposition by the Defendant is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The fact that the Plaintiff owned the instant land on April 27, 1998 by inheritance and transferred on April 25, 2007 is as seen above. Therefore, the instant land constitutes non-business land pursuant to Article 104-3(1)4 of the Income Tax Act and Article 168-6 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301, Feb. 4, 2009) and the transfer value of non-business land constitutes 60% pursuant to Article 96(2) subparag. 8 of the Income Tax Act, and thus, the calculation of the amount of capital gains tax on the instant land by the Defendant is lawful.

(2)On the other hand, considering that an additional tax for unfaithful payment is a financial benefit for inducing a taxpayer to pay the tax in good faith and is an administrative sanction against the breach of the obligation to pay the tax, it shall not be deemed that even if the amount increased or corrected and notified by the defendant is subject to the imposition of the additional tax for unfaithful payment, and it shall not be deemed that there are justifiable grounds for the plaintiff's assertion that the amount is short of the tax amount.

(3)Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

3.In conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.