본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
매매사례가액으로 과세한 처분의 당부(기각)

【Request Number】

National Trial 205J 337 (Law No. 07, 2006)

[세 목]

Certificates of merit

[Types of Decision]

Dismissal

[Summary of Decision]

Since the transfer of part of the donated land within 3 months is recognized as the similarity of transaction example land, the disposition taxable after evaluating the value of donated property as transaction example is justifiable.

[Related Acts]

Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act / Article 49 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

【Determination following Decision】

early 2014 Gwangju 4171 / early 2019 Swiss 2835/ early 2019 Swiss 2834

[주 문]

I dismiss the appeal.

[이 유]

1. Summary of disposition;

A. Of 202-2 square meters for an OO site and 988 square meters for a building site and 204 square meters for a building site and 204 square meters for a building site (hereinafter “point land”), the claimant’s mother’s mother’s OO shares (29/54) were donated on May 21, 2004; and the claimant’s OO shares (12.5/54) were assessed as the publicly assessed individual land price on June 17, 2004 and reported and paid gift tax.

나. 처분청은 청구인이 위 같은 동 204 대지 193.22㎡〔청구인이 소유하고 있던 지분(54분의 12.5)과 2004.5.21. 증여받은 지분(54분의 29)을 합하여 총 54분의 41.5의 소유지분중 일부(54분의 8)와 2004.6.17. 심OOO 지분(54분의 12.5)전부, 이하 “매매사례토지 ”라 한다〕를 2004.6.17. 진OOO에게 58,500천원에 양도한 사실을 확인하고, 그 거래가액(이하 “매매사례가액”이라 한다)을 시가로 보아 청구인이 개별공시지가에 의하여 평가하여 신고한 쟁점토지의 증여재산가액을 부인하고 위 매매사례가액으로 쟁점토지의 당해 증여재산가액을 평가하여 2005.3.15. 청구인에게 2004년 귀속 증여세 8,250,730원을 경정고지하였다.

C. The claimant raised an objection on June 13, 2005 and filed an appeal on September 2, 2005.

2. Opinions of the claimant and disposition agency;

A. The claimant's assertion

In accordance with Article 61 of the Inheritance Tax Act, the claimant evaluated the value of donated property of the land at issue as the officially assessed individual land price and reported it, the disposition agency assessed the land at issue by applying the example of transaction transaction pursuant to Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax Act.However, since the land at issue does not correspond to the land at issue and the area, location, use and category of the land at issue,

(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;

Since land confirmed by the disposition agency is a land included in donated property and the similarity is confirmed by the "land characteristics survey table", the disposition imposed on the transaction value of similar real estate within three months before and after the base date of appraisal in the evaluation of donated property is justifiable.

3. Hearing and determination

(a) Points in dispute;

The propriety of the disposition imposing gift tax by evaluating the value of donated land

(b) Related statutes;

(1) The value of property on which the inheritance tax or gift tax is imposed under this Act shall be based on the market price as of the date of commencing the inheritance or the date of donation (hereinafter referred to as the “date of appraisal”). In this case, the value appraised by the method of appraisal under Article 63 (1) 1 (a) and (b) (excluding the case falling under the provisions of Article 63 (2)) shall be deemed the market price.

② 제1항의 규정에 의한 시가는 불특정다수인사이에 자유로이 거래가 이루어지는 경우에 통상 성립된다고 인정되는 가액으로 하고 수용공매가격 및 감정가격 등 대통령령이 정하는 바에 의하여 시가로 인정되는 것을 포함한다.

③ 제1항의 규정을 적용함에 있어서 시가를 산정하기 어려운 경우에는 당해 재산의 종류규모거래상황 등을 감안하여 제61조 내지 제65조에 규정된 방법에 의하여 평가한 가액에 의한다.

(4) In applying paragraph (1), the value of the donated property added to the value of the inherited property pursuant to Article 13 shall be based on the market price as of the date of donation.

Article 61 (Appraisal of Real Estate) (1) The appraisal of real estate shall be made according to the methods prescribed in any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Land:

Individual land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (hereinafter referred to as "individually published land price").

상속세 및 증여세법시행령 제49조 (2003.12.30. 대통령령 제18177호로 개정된것)【평가의 원칙 등】① 법 제60조 제2항에서 “수용공매가격 및 감정가격 등 대통령령이 정하는 바에 의하여 시가로 인정되는 것 ”이라 함은 평가기준일 전후 6월(증여재산의 경우에는 3월로 한다. 이하 이 항에서 “평가기간 ”이라 한다) 이내의 기간 중 매매감정수용경매(민사집행법에 의한 경매를 말한다. 이하 이 항에서 같다) 또는 공매(이하 이 항에서 “매매 등 ”이라 한다)가 있는 경우에 다음 각호의 1의 규정에 의하여 확인되는 가액을 말한다. (단서생략)

1. If the fact of sale and purchase of the relevant property exists, the transaction value: Provided, That this shall not apply where the transaction value is deemed objectively unfair, such as transactions with persons with a special relationship provided for in Article 26 (4);

(2) In applying the provisions of paragraph (1), whether a value under any subparagraph of paragraph (1) falls within six months before or after the standard date of appraisal (three months for donated property), shall be determined on the basis of the dates prescribed in the following subparagraphs, and where the value deemed the market price under the provisions of paragraph (1) is two or more, the value falling under the nearest day before or after the standard date of appraisal

1. The sales contract date for the case of paragraph (1) 1;

⑤ 제1항의 규정을 적용함에 있어서 당해 재산과 면적위치용도 및 종목이 동일하거나 유사한 다른 재산에 대한 동항 각호의 1에 해당하는 가액이 있는 경우에는 당해 가액을 법 제60조 제2항의 규정에 의한 시가로 본다.

C. Facts and determination

The claimant argues that the application of transaction example is unfair because the land at issue and the land at sale case is not similar to the area, location, use, and category.

(1) The list of donated property donated on May 21, 2004 and June 17, 2004 by the claimant is as follows. The disposition agency assessed the value of donated property of the key land by applying the transaction example (302,763 won per square meter) and then there is no dispute between the claimant and the disposition agency as to the corrected fact of gift tax.

OO

(2) Although the claimant asserts that the land at issue and the land at issue are not similar to the size, location, use, and category of the land at issue, in light of the land characteristics survey table prepared on January 1, 2004 by the OO market, the land at issue and the land in the development restriction zone and the permission zone reported by the claimant are the housing site, and the land use status is the land within the development restriction zone and the land at issue and the permission zone and the land at issue are similar to the topographical land and other road conditions, and the land at low, low, shape, defense, and street are equal equally,

(3) If so, it is recognized that the land at issue and the land at issue are similar, and the claimant transfers part (sale case land) of the land at issue donated within 3 months, it is deemed that the disposition agency did not err in the disposition imposed by evaluating the value of the property at issue as transaction example.

4. Conclusion

This case's request for a trial has no merit as a result of the review, and it shall be decided as ordered under Articles 81 and 65(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.