Seocho 2013west 3011 ( October 14, 2013)

If the actual transfer value is not verified, the estimated tax is legitimate.

If the sales contract is no longer reliable with the content of the contract, and if the actual transfer value is not confirmed, it is legitimate to impose additional tax.

2014 old-gu 109 Capital Gains Tax Imposition Disposition

○ ○

Head of Eastern Tax Office

April 30, 2014

May 28, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On May 13, 2013, the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 00 and local income tax of KRW 00,000 imposed on the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 10, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired 11,141 square meters and 5,619 square meters and 1/619 square meters and 1/6 equity shares (hereinafter referred to as “instant equity shares”) of the instant forest and △△△-gun, Gangwon-do, △△△△-gun, △△△△△, and reported and paid KRW 00,00,000 based on the instant equity transfer on the premise that the actual transfer value of the instant forest is ○○○○○○○, and the instant forest and 1/619 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant forest”). On September 18, 2007, along with other equity owners, the Plaintiff transferred the instant forest and △△△ (hereinafter referred to as “foreign company”) to the △△, Inc., a total amount of KRW 250,00,000, and on the premise that the actual transfer value of the instant forest is ○○.

B. The Defendant: (a) on the ground that the actual transfer value of the said forest cannot be recognized or confirmed; (b) on September 12, 2007, the transfer value of the instant shares was calculated as KRW 00 on September 12, 2007, by deeming that the transfer value of the instant shares was the transaction example value; and (c) on May 13, 2013, the Plaintiff corrected and notified the transfer income tax of KRW 007 for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 9 through 10-2, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The owner of the instant forest, including the Plaintiff, agreed to sell the said forest and cerebral ginseng to ○○○○○, and again prepared a sales contract by setting the sales value of the instant forest as KRW 00 and the sales value of the instant forest as KRW 00. Therefore, even if the actual transfer value of the instant forest is verified as KRW 00, the Defendant’s imposition of estimated taxes is unlawful. (2) Compared forest is not only a place adjacent to the instant forest, but also a place transacted regardless of the instant forest. As such, the Defendant’s use of the transfer value of the comparative forest as a business example is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, with respect to the transfer of the shares of this case, it can be acknowledged that the sales contract was made up, with regard to the transfer of the shares of this case, "O○○, 0-1, 00, 000, 000, 000, 0000, 207, 2007, 300,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,00,00,000,00,00,00,00.

In light of such geographical closeness, similarity of the officially assessed individual land price, and the identity of the buyer and the purchase date, there is no reason to conclude a sales contract by calculating the market price per unit area of the compared forest land with the forest land in this case. Nevertheless, the sales price per unit area of the compared forest was calculated as KRW 6,050, and the sales price per unit area of the instant forest in this case as stated in the said sales contract was calculated as KRW 3,025.

The corporation of ○○ △, a corporation established by the Plaintiff, etc. for the purpose of cultivating the brain ginseng in the instant forest. The Plaintiff asserted that the brain ginseng planted in the instant forest was sold to ○○○○○○○○. However, according to the specifications of manufacturing cost of the instant corporation, the inventory value of the end-of-life goods in the year 2006 is the amount of KRW ○○ KRW, and the inventory value of the end-of-life goods in the year 2007 is the amount of KRW ○○○○, and there was no fact that the said corporation recognized the sale price of the brain ginseng as its profits. There is no evidence to verify the volume, quality, etc. of the brain ginseng planted in the instant forest.

Even though according to the Plaintiff’s assertion and the contents of the above sales contract, the owner of the instant forest including the Plaintiff, etc., agreed to sell the instant forest and cerebral ginseng to ○○○○, including the instant forest and cerebral ginseng, and completed the said sales contract only after receiving the price. It is difficult to view it as the preparation of a normal sales contract.

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.