National High Court 1991west0968 ( October 13, 1991)

Transfer

Dismissal

Whether much land is transferred to anyone shall be reasonable to follow the content of the registry and the content of the return on the transfer of the real estate in question.

Article 81 of the Framework Act on National Taxes / Article 65 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

I dismiss the appeal.

1. Facts;

The claimant is a person who has a 29,247 square meters (the share of the claimant x 29,247 square meters x 3,247 square meters x 3,50.87 square meters x 3,247 x 3,2473,305.87 square meters) in common after he/she acquired 29,78 square meters (the share of the claimant 0,000, 19,978 square meters owned independently by 70,978, 1978 square meters) and 87,000,000 (the share of the claimant 29,269,000 square meters) in common with 19,78 square meters (the share of the claimant 0,000, 19,78 square meters) and 269,000,000 forest land x 29,000 square meters (the share of the claimant x 269,393,2974 meters).27

In this regard, the disposition agency first imposed only 1,047.42 square meters (89.11) 1,047.42 square meters (12,67,757, conversion acquisition value) with the knowledge that the land subject to the transfer of shares was 1,047.42 square meters (12,677,757, conversion acquisition value) but later, 1,643,127 square meters (1,67) with the share of 19,978 square meters (19,978 square meters x 3,305, 247.42, 258.45 square meters, 19,978, 1978, 2978, 247, 247, 297, 57, 5000, 297, 57, 297, 47, 247, 719.5 square meters) with the ownership of the land subject to the transfer, 1970, 297,

After the claimant is dissatisfied with the request for review on February 7, 91 and the 91.3.22, the 91.5.16 appeal was filed.

2. The claimant's assertion;

The above division is right and wrong as the owner of O.O. 19,978 square meters other than the claim 200O.O. 3,269 square meters: Provided, That in the case of 9,269 square meters of forest land, the indication of registration is 9,269 3,305.87 square meters (3,305.87 square meters) and O. 5,269 9,263.13 (5,963.13 square meters) of shares in the total land area prior to the division, so the ownership transfer value of 29,247 x 3,307 x3,247 x 307 x 97 x 294 m294 m2,47 m2,497 m2,497 m2,497 m2,497 m2,974

3. Opinions of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service;

The claimant asserts that he transferred the shares of 29,269 square meters to 3,300,000,000,0000 3,0000,0000,000,000 within 9,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000 within 9,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00.

In full of the above facts, the claimant should have been divided into 3,305.87 square meters in total at the time of dividing the jointly-owned property by mistake of a certified judicial scrivener, and the claimant should have been divided into 1,047.42 square meters in total at the time of dividing the jointly-owned property into 3,305.87 square meters at the time of dividing the jointly-owned property by mistake of a certified judicial scrivener. The claimant did not have any registration of modification by mistake in the application for registration even though it was different from the fact that only 1,047.42 square meters have been divided by 1,047.42 square meters, and even if 3,305.87 square meters in total at the time of dividing the jointly-owned property, 3,309 square meters in total, the claimant's share was transferred to 4,269 square meters in total, and the claimant's share appears to have been transferred to 1,047.42.25 meters in the application for registration, and there was no difference in the remaining portion of taxation request.

4. Issues

This dispute is based on whether the claimant's initial co-owned share 3,305.87 square meters is deemed to have been transferred to OOOO Co., Ltd. or whether the claimant's initial co-owned share 3,305 square meters is transferred to OOO Co., Ltd. as claimed by the claimant, or whether the remaining 2,258.45 square meters are transferred to OO.

5. Hearing and determination

First, according to this case's taxation records, the agency has acquired 29,247 square meters (3,350.87 square meters of the applicant's share) from an individual in co-ownership with the OOOOO of the OO of the OO of the OO of the OO of the OO of the OO of the OO of the 1,047 square meters for the claimant's share divided and included in 9,269 square meters in the OO of the OO of the O of the O of the O of the O of the O of the O of the O of the O of the O of the O of the O of the O of the O of the O of the O of the O of the 1,078 square meters, and the 2,258.45 square meters of the O of the O of the OO of the O of the 258 square meters.

The next claimant argues that all of the 3,305.87 square meters of the original claimant's share in the land is transferred to OOOO Co., Ltd., and claims taxation based on the actual transaction price.

Domins Domins

First, according to the copy of the register of this case, the claimant's share 3,305.87 square meters out of the 29,247 square meters of the OO of the 29,247 square meters of the land owned by the plaintiff in co-ownership with the OOOOO of the non-claim-gun of Gyeonggi-do is divided and included in the 9,269 square meters of the forest land in the Dong office and transferred to the OOOOO Co., Ltd. (the date of receipt of the registration: 89.8.9) and the remaining OOOOO's share 2,258.45 square meters in the 19,978 square meters of the land in the Dong office, and the 1,047 square meters of the OOO's share remaining in the OOO's forest in the Dong-gun-gun of Gyeonggi-do (the date of receipt of the registration) and the 1,058 square meters of the shares of the co-owner are transferred to the non-owner.

Second, the claimant and the non-claim OO transferred the OOO forest 9,269 square meters to the non-claim OOO Co., Ltd. according to the registration, and the claimant transferred the 1,047.42 square meters to the non-claim 1,047.42 square meters, and the non-claim O transferred the 8221.8 square meters to the non-claim OO.

Third, if the claimant transferred all of the 3,305.87 square meters of the land in the claimant's share to the OOOO corporation as alleged by the claimant, the claimant received the purchase price equivalent to the transfer area from the OOO corporation, but there is no objective proof document.

Fourth, according to the sales contract for the above OO forest 9,269 square meters concluded on May 16, 89 to the claimant and the non-claim OOO and the non-claim OOOO corporation, there is no indication of the share of the transferred land for each person under the sales contract for 9.5 square meters.

Fifth, the registration of OOO forest in OO forest has not been corrected.

In light of the above contents, if the claimant transfers a certain amount of land to anyone, it is reasonable to follow the content of the registry of the real estate in question and the content of the return on the transfer of the claimant's profit. However, it is recognized that only 1,047.42 square meters out of the 3,305.87 square meters of the land owned by the claimant as the initial co-ownership and the 1,047.42 square meters out of the 3,305.45 square meters, the remaining 2,258.45 square meters are transferred to OOO.

Therefore, it is judged that the claim seeking correction of the disposition based on the actual transaction value under the premise that the land 2,258.45 square meters of the above claimant's share was transferred to the non-claim OOOO corporation.

6. Conclusion

This request for a trial is recognized as groundless by the claimant as a result of the review, so it shall be determined in accordance with Article 81 and Article 65 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.