Appropriateness of the assertion that the transfer value of the stamp contract is higher than the actual transfer value

The actual contract is not a transfer value, considering that the standard market price and appraisal value are more than the approval agreement, and the transfer value under the approval agreement is extremely exceptional, and the amount claimed by the plaintiff as the actual contract was paid as a lump sum without the intermediate payment of the down payment, the actual contract is not a transfer value.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act, Article 114 of the Income Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Two costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 20,979,190 against the plaintiff on January 15, 2003 by the defendant shall be revoked.

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "Nos. 2 and 6-1 and 2 of Gap evidence Nos. 6-2 against this case's reasoning 4-7 and 8 of the first instance court's judgment, "No. 1, 2-2 of Gap evidence No. 10-1, 2, and 9 of Gap evidence No. 10-2, and Gap evidence No. 10-3, part of defendant No. 4, 15 of defendant Nos. 4, 15 of defendant No. 4, 15 of defendant Nos. 4, 5-1, 2-1 and 6-1 of defendant No. 12-1, Gap evidence No. 12-2 of defendant No. 6-1 and 6-2 of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 9 of defendant evidence No. 10-2 against this case's "A", and it is justified for the court of first instance to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Civil Litigation Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just and without merit, and it is dismissed.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2003Guhap4608 ( June 30, 2004)]

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 20,979,190 for the Plaintiff on January 15, 2003 is revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 1, 3.

A. On April 23, 1994, the Plaintiff and ○○○, ○○○○, and ○○○○○○, jointly inherited the instant land and the instant building owned by the Juvenile Training Center (hereinafter referred to as each of the instant land, each of the instant land and the instant building) owned by ○○○○, ○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○○, a building owned by ○○○○○, a building owned by ○○○○, a building owned by 238,086 square meters in the 238-5 site in the 238-5 site in the 238-7 site in the same Ri, a building owned by 238-7 square meters in the same Ri, a building owned by 238-84 square meters in the same Ri, a building owned by 238-84 square meters in the same Ri, and a building owned by ○○ on December 12, 200.

B. In short, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax on the Plaintiff’s shares among each land of this case to the Defendant, and reported the transfer income tax on the basis of KRW 290,00,000 on the basis of the transfer value of each real estate of this case stated on the seal of approval agreement. On February 26, 2001, the Plaintiff again reported and paid KRW 22,671,440,000 on the basis of the transfer value of the Plaintiff’s shares among the transfer value of KRW 550,000 on the basis of the sales contract and the confirmation document of KRW 550,000 on the basis of the sales contract stating that the sale value of the real estate of this case was KRW 550,00,000,000.

C. On February 26, 2001, the Defendant recognized that the sales contract for the manufacture and sale of goods cannot be trusted, and recognized that the amount of transfer on the approval seal contract is true, and issued a revised and notified 20,979,190 won to the transfer income belonging to the year 200, deducting the amount of tax paid for the scheduled return of KRW 41,977,00,842 from the calculated tax base of KRW 127,442,664, based on the Plaintiff’s equity share of KRW 920,964,574, the transfer value on the approval seal contract (the next disposition was taken).

2. Whether the disposition of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to the sales contract, related financial data, and confirmation of ○○○, etc., the actual transfer value of each real estate of this case is KRW 550,000,000, the Defendant was found to have committed an unlawful disposition of this case based on the transfer value under the seal of approval contract.

(c) the marketing;

According to each of the above evidence, the actual transfer value of each of the real estate in this case can be recognized as 920,00,000, and evidence Nos. 2 and 8-1,2 are contrary to the above evidence. The standard market price of each of the real estate in this case is 966,465,000, the appraisal price of each of the real estate in this case is 1,200,000 won in the appraisal for creation of security right, and the transfer price is 1,20,46,000, more than the actual transfer price of each of the real estate in this case is 40,000,000,000 won which is less than the actual transfer price of each of the above 4,000,000 won, and it is not easily acceptable that the defendant submitted a sales contract with a lower transfer price than the actual transfer price of each of the above 14,000,000 won in the sale price of each of the above 14,001,04,0000.