District Court-2015-Gu Group-255 ( October 12, 2016)

Cho-2014-China-4017 ( October 30, 2014)

The actual transaction price of the land of this case is confirmed.

Since the actual transaction price of the instant land is confirmed, the transfer value cannot be converted by the standard market price.

Article 100 of the Income Tax Act (Calculation of Gains on Transfer)

2016Nu72510 Revocation of Disposition of Reduction or Correction of Capital Gains Tax

OO

O Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Gudan255 Decided October 12, 2016

2017.06.28

2017.08.16

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on January 13, 2014 regarding the reduction of the amount exceeding the OO members among the OO members reported on capital gains tax against the plaintiff on January 13, 2014 is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why the court should explain the instant case is a newly submitted evidence by this court

The entry of Gap evidence No. 9, which is insufficient to acknowledge the fact of intentional assertion, shall be rejected, and except for the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of the first instance as follows, is the same as the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of the first instance. Thus, the meaning of the words used in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter referred to as "ab

2. Parts to be removed or added;

1) Part 2, page 15, an “absaryary” shall be regarded as “absary reduction”.

2) The third page “instant case” shall be deleted.

3) The third side of the 17th page "To this end," "to the first place".

4) The following shall be added to Chapter 21 on the third side:

Then, the actual transfer value of the relevant asset, which serves as the basis for calculating the amount of capital gains tax, refers to the value that the transferor transfers the asset at the time of the transaction and received as the price for the transfer and is objectively recognizable by the sales contract or other documentary evidence. Thus, in the case of the transaction exchange, the actual transfer value may be verified if the value of the object is a value exchange based on the objective value of the object by following the procedure for settling the difference in the appraisal value, etc., in the case of the transaction exchange, the market price appraisal of the object of exchange is conducted on the basis of the difference in the appraisal value. However, in the case where the parties to the transaction make a simple exchange by determining only the difference in the value of the object of exchange under an agreement between the parties without such procedure and paying the difference, the actual transfer value shall not be confirmed. This provision applies to the case where the parties to the exchange contract arbitrarily evaluate and determine the value of the object of exchange and then calculate the difference (see

1) The 8th page “(1)” of the 4th page is added to the following:

2) The fourth part of the case is "the case" as "the case in this case".

3) Each "witness" of the fourth, fourteenth and sixteenth parts shall be considered as the "witness of the first instance trial" respectively.

4) The fifth page of the second page "the same as the above" shall be regarded as "the same as the above".

5) The second point in Chapter 5 is to add the following:

“The sales price of the instant land and the instant commercial building under the sales contract is KRW 550,00,00,00 for each sales contract, and KRW 830,00,00 for each of the instant land and KRW 830,00 for each of the instant land and KRW 274,590,250 for each of the instant land and KRW 429,191,080 for each of the instant land and KRW 429,080 for each of the instant land at the time of the preparation of the sales contract, and KRW 495,90,00 for each of the instant land and KRW 238,200 for each of the instant land and KRW 495,90 for each of the instant land, and thus, it is difficult to believe that each of the instant land and the instant commercial buildings were exchanged simply without any difference between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff without any agreement to pay the difference between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

6) Part 5 of the fifth page " shall be reasonable," plus the following:

Even if each contract for the sale of the instant land and the instant commercial building constitutes a contract to exchange the instant land and the instant commercial building (hereinafter “Exchange contract”), the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings set forth earlier, namely, (1) the witness AA of the first instance trial confirmed the actual amount of debt by both parties, and (3) confirmed the actual transaction price by visiting the location of the instant land for 3 days directly by AA to exchange 30,000,000 won for 50,000 won for 0,000 won for 50,000 won for 30,000 won for 50,000 won for 50,000 won for 30,000 won for 50,000 won for 30,000 won for 30,000 won for 50,000 won for 830,000 won for 50,000 won for each of the instant land sales contract.

(4) In full view of the fact that each of the appraisal values of the instant land and the instant commercial building, as indicated in each sales contract, are recognized as a genuine transaction value, it is reasonable to deem that the instant exchange contract constitutes a value exchange that can confirm the actual transaction value. Thus, even if there is no market value appraisal, it can be deemed as the actual transaction value of the instant land even if there is no market value appraisal.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed.

As the conclusion is justified, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.