The conversion of acquisition value by applying the standard market price according to the provisional grade in this case is legitimate.

On the date stipulated in the instant formula, the provisional grade was set as the land designated as the land scheduled for substitution, and the said grade and the provisional grade are not in accordance with a separate system but merely modified depending on changes in circumstances, and thus, it is legitimate to convert the acquisition value by applying the standard market price according to the provisional grade in the instant formula.

Article 99 (Assessment of Standard Market Price)

2014Guhap2533 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

○ Head of tax office

May 14, 2015

June 11, 2015

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax by the Defendant on October 4, 2013 against the Plaintiff on October 4, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 4, 1987, the Plaintiff: ○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○ 873 square meters and Dong ○○○ 549 square meters.

On May 1, 1989, the above land was designated as a land substitution under a land substitution project, and on February 10, 1992, the plaintiff acquired ownership of the above land 1/4 shares of 00 (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") after the land substitution disposition became final and conclusive as the same ○○-731 square meters in accordance with a land substitution project.

B. On April 4, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to the Defendant on the grounds of sale and purchase, and on July 1, 2013, when filing a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax under Article 105(1) of the Income Tax Act, the transfer value shall be 0,000 won, and the acquisition value shall be 0,000 won, and on the basis of the formula under Article 164(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26067, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act”) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant formula”), the “standard market price as of August 30, 1990,” calculated the “○○,000 won by applying the standard market price corresponding to the land grade as of January 1, 19.

C. On October 4, 2013, the Defendant calculated the acquisition value by applying the standard market price corresponding to the provisional grade on May 15, 1990, which was established after the land was designated as a reserved land substitution, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the acquisition value, based on the fact that there is no evidence to acknowledge it, by taking into account the standard market price at the time of acquisition in accordance with Article 164(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 77(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act as of January 1, 1990, the amount calculated by converting the standard market price at the time of acquisition into the officially assessed land price at the time of acquisition of the land at the time of acquisition in the officially assessed land price of this case at the time of acquisition (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). The Defendant finally calculated the acquisition value by applying the standard market price corresponding to the provisional grade on May 15, 190, which was finally determined as a reserved land substitution.

D. The specific process of calculating the acquisition value of each of the instant land by the Plaintiff and the Defendant is as follows.

E. On December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection, but was dismissed on October 24, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff acquired the above land before the land was designated as the reserved land for replotting, and the above land was designated as the reserved land for replotting on May 1, 1989 and there was no change in the land grade (150) before the publicly announced officially announced individual land price on August 30, 1990. Thus, the current standard market price according to the current market price of the land grade on August 1, 1989, which was set up immediately before the designation of the reserved land for replotting, shall be applied to the current market price of August 30, 1990 as stipulated in Article 164(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. However, the defendant calculated the acquisition price by applying the standard market price according to the provisional grade set up on the land of this case

Since this should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

(b) Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

C. Determination

1) The transfer price of assets shall be determined based on the actual transaction price between the transferor and the transferee at the time of transfer of the assets (hereinafter “actual transaction price”). The acquisition price shall also be determined based on the actual transaction price. In this case, where there is no evidentiary document necessary to verify the actual transaction price at the time of transfer or acquisition, or there is no appraisal price for the assets with the identity or similarity of the assets at the time of transfer due to lack of important parts, etc., the acquisition price shall be determined by dividing the actual transaction price at the time of transfer by the standard market price at the time of transfer at the time of transfer and multiplying by the standard market price at the time of acquisition (Articles 96(1), 10(1) and 114(7) of the Income Tax Act, Article 176-2(1)1 and (3)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. In this case, the standard market price of land shall be determined by the officially assessed individual land price under the Act on the Public Announcement of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate and Appraisal, Article 16(4) of the former Local Tax Act shall be determined by the following formula.

Standard market price at the time of acquisition

On January 1, 1990 】 Standard officially assessed individual land price 】

On August 30, 1990, the current standard market price and the immediately preceding determination thereof.

The total amount of standard market prices divided by two;

2) However, according to Article 111 of the former Local Tax Act, Articles 80(1)1 and 80-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14878, Dec. 30, 1995; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act"), and Article 46 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance No. 668, Dec. 30, 1995; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act"), the provisional grade for the land for which the land substitution is designated by the land substitution project shall be deemed to be the kind of modified grade, rather than the newly established land class, because the dignity or circumstance of the land is significantly changed, rather than the newly established land class, in case where the land substitution project was designated by the implementation of the land substitution project, the taxation standard market value of the land in the said land within the said land substitution zone shall be interpreted by the newly established land class after the land substitution is declared (see, 96Nu 29, 25, 19, 196.4, 196.296.2,4.

3) Ultimately, as seen above, the land of this case was set on May 4, 1987 at the time when the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s ownership, and the provisional grade was set on August 30, 1990 as the land to be reserved for replotting, which was set on August 30, 199, which was the date set by the instant formula, and the above land grade and the provisional grade were not based on a separate system, but merely modified depending on the change of circumstances, and thus, they are deemed mutually continuous. Thus, in applying the instant formula, in applying the instant formula, the standard market price according to the land grade established on May 1, 1987 at the time of the acquisition shall be deemed as the “standard market price at the time of the acquisition”, and the provisional grade established on May 15, 190 shall be deemed as the “standard market price at August 30, 199,” and the disposal converted the acquisition value of the land of this case shall be deemed as the “standard market price at the time of the acquisition.”

(c)

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

It is so decided as per sentence.