The argument that the actual acquisition price is different from the registry is without merit.

A contract submitted cannot be deemed as a seller's testimony and seal, and the authenticity of the contract shall not be recognized, and a disposition imposing a transaction price on the registry (the reported amount by the seller) on the acquisition price when taking the contract amount paid in an amount equivalent to 10% of the purchase price, the contract completion certificate for real estate transactions

Article 100 (Calculation of Gains on Transfer)

2016Guhap340 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

○○ et al.

00. Head of tax office

April 5, 2018

May 31, 2018

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 43,447,740 on July 6, 2015 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 5, 2006, the Plaintiffs purchased the land and buildings located in WW 12-16, 000, Nam-gu 000,000 (former address name: W W 00,000-5) (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from KK (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On April 8, 2013, the Plaintiffs sold the instant real estate to TT in KRW 1.58 billion.

C. On August 5, 2006, the Plaintiffs reported the transfer income tax on the instant real estate to the Defendant by purchasing KRW 1.2 billion from KK on August 5, 2006, and selling KRW 1.58 billion to TT on April 8, 2013.

D. As a result of the investigation, the Defendant identified the sales price under the instant contract concluded between the Plaintiffs and KK as KRW 920 million, and premised on the premise that the said sales price constitutes KRW 920 million.

7.6. Each of the plaintiffs was subject to a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 43,447,740 (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

E. On October 7, 2015, the Plaintiffs dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ request on December 31, 2015.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the purchase price for the instant real estate purchased by the Plaintiffs is KRW 1.2 billion, the Defendant’s disposition of this case based on the premise that the purchase price is KRW 920 million is unlawful.

B. Determination

As examined below, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4-3 of Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 6-1 through 6-3, Eul evidence Nos. 7, witness HH, MM, and KK's testimony and arguments are not used as evidence, and in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to see that the purchase price under the contract of this case is KRW 920 million, and thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is lawful. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion is not accepted.

① The submission of the instant contract by the plaintiffs as Gap evidence, Eul evidence No. 1 submitted by the plaintiffs to this court, Eul evidence No. 4-3 (each of the above contracts is the same as the document) submitted by the defendant to this court in the process of the above investigation by the plaintiffs, and Eul evidence No. 6-2 of the defendant submitted to this court by the defendant in the process of the above investigation by the defendant. However, the above Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 4-3 submitted by the plaintiffs cannot be deemed true because the above documents are different from Eul evidence No. 6-2 of the above documents, and it cannot be acknowledged that the above documents are inconsistent with Eul evidence No. 4 of the above documents.

② As above, insofar as evidence No. 1 and No. 4-3 cannot be used as evidence, only No. 6-2 of the evidence No. 6-2 of the instant contract shall be deemed to be the instant contract (the above contract is different from evidence No. 1 and No. 4-3 of the evidence No. 4, and the signature and seal of MM, which is the broker, has been completed, and MM also was present in this court as a witness and signed and sealed as above). According to the instant contract, the sales price under the instant contract shall be recognized as KRW 920 million.

③ There is no dispute between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant that the down payment of KRW 92 million was made as the down payment of the instant contract. Considering that 10% of the purchase price is customary in the ordinary real estate transaction, it is sufficiently confirmed that the purchase price under the instant contract is KRW 920 million.

④ A certificate of completion of the real estate transaction contract prepared on September 6, 2006, which was around the date of the instant contract, also includes the purchase price of KRW 920 million under the instant contract.

⑤ KK, the other party to the instant contract, was present as a witness in this court and testified that it was paid KRW 920 million from the Plaintiffs as the purchase price ( Witness HH and MM testified to the effect that the specific content of the instant contract is vague, and that the 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '' is not memory’ is not memory). As such, the said witness appears to be either aware of the purchase price under the instant contract or unsatisfying it.)

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the claims by the plaintiffs in this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.