Incheon District Court 2012Gudan659 ( December 04, 2012)

Early High Court Decision 201Du4838 ( October 17, 2012)

The appraisal value of the real estate specified in the exchange contract shall be deemed to be the actual transaction value.

Since the value stipulated in the exchange contract may be sufficiently recognized as the actual transaction value of the real estate in this case even if there is no market value appraisal, it is reasonable to see such amount as the actual transaction value of the real estate in this case (it cannot be deemed as the case where the actual transaction value cannot be confirmed because there

Article 88 of the Income Tax Act, Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

2012Nu39874 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

The AA

The director of the North Incheon National Tax Office

Incheon District Court Decision 2012Gudan659 Decided December 4, 2012

December 18, 2013

February 12, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The part of the disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on August 8, 201, which exceeds the OOO members of the capital gains tax of 2009, shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court’s judgment is as follows: (a) adding a judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion is identical to that of the first instance court; and (b) thus, (c) pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Additional determination

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the actual transaction value of the instant real estate is unlawful even in the court. However, the instant exchange contract contains not only the assessed value of the instant real estate as the actual transaction value of the instant real estate, but also the amount of the transferred debt related to the settlement of the difference as well as the amount of the transferred debt. The Plaintiff prepared a multiple contract separately from the instant exchange contract in order to reduce the transfer income tax burden. After the transfer of the instant real estate in related criminal cases, the Plaintiff was convicted of having evaded taxes by unlawful means by preparing a double contract and filing a tax return based on the same, and the judgment became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court. However, considering that the Plaintiff’s intent and content related to the assessment of real estate at the time of the instant exchange contract, the settlement procedure related to the instant difference, the circumstances surrounding the present exchange contract, and the details of the pertinent criminal case’s confirmation document, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the actual transaction value of the instant real estate can not be seen as the actual transaction value, even if there is no reasonable basis to view that the actual transaction value of the instant real estate is the Plaintiff’s market value.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.