Suwon District Court 2013Gudan1410 (No. 17, 2013)

early 2012 Heavy1241 (Law No. 11267, 2012)

This disposition is legitimate as the actual acquisition value of the purchase price under the approval agreement.

There is no specific and objective financial data to recognize that the transferor of real estate has paid the amount exceeding the purchase price under the approval agreement, and the original disposition imposed on the approval agreement is legitimate because the actual contract newly submitted by the plaintiff is not considered as a contract at the time of transfer as a result of appraisal and assessment.

Article 100 of the Income Tax Act [Calculation of Gains on Transfer]

2013Nu22439 Revocation of disposition of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

KimA

Head of Suwon Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gudan1410 Decided July 17, 2013

April 23, 2014

May 28, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the imposition of the capital gains tax for the plaintiff on January 11, 2012 and the imposition of the capital gains tax for the plaintiff on January 2010.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is the same as that for the first instance court’s decision, except for any addition under the following: (b) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and (c) Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased each real estate of this case to DoB, and supported the details of financial transactions as stated in the true sales contract (Evidence A1) prepared at the time. A concurrent contract (Evidence A) signed between DoB and the Plaintiff was prepared by a certified judicial scrivener only for the purpose of transferring registration, regardless of the actual sales price, and the disposition of this case was unlawful even if the actual sales price of each real estate of this case was not the actual sales price of each real estate of this case, even though the above contract was not the actual sales price of each real estate of this case.

B. Determination

Unless there are special circumstances, the seal of approval issued by the parties to a transaction and affixed with the seal of approval of the head of a Si/Gun, etc. shall be presumed to have been prepared in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, and the assertion that the contract was prepared differently from the actual ones shall be proved (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2353, Apr. 9,

However, evidence No. 9, evidence No. 10, evidence No. 2-1 through No. 3, evidence No. 2-3, evidence No. 4, evidence No. 4, and evidence No. 4, and evidence No. 12-2, evidence No. 12-2, and evidence No. 12-2, evidence No. 12-2, and evidence No. 12-2, and evidence No. 12-2, evidence No. 12-2, and evidence No. 12-2, and evidence No. 12-2, and evidence No. 12-3, etc., submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the sale of each real estate of this case, are acknowledged as follows.

In other words, the Plaintiff’s each real estate of this case in the process of a pre-assessment review and a trial request.

The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that it was acquired as a substitute for payment in lieu of the amount of approximately KRW 00,00,00,000 from the original owner, and that it merely borrowed the form of acquisition from hB during the process of transferring the registration, and that the instant claim was not accepted, each of the instant real estate was purchased from hB to hB, and that it was actually paid the purchase amount of KRW 00,000 by account transfer and cash payment to hB. However, the Plaintiff asserted that it was found that the Plaintiff was against the first instance court, and that the Plaintiff was found to have discovered a true sales contract (Evidence 11) at the latest, and that it was submitted to the first instance court, and that the purchase price O0, as stated in the above evidence No. 11, claimed that the purchase price O0 was the actual purchase price and changed the content of the claim.

② According to the appraiser KimCC’s appraisal conducted at the trial court, Gap evidence No. 11 appears to be more likely to have existed in the document 2012 rather than in 2002, the degree of sanctation of the used site or the remaining constituents of the stamp image affixed with the changed condition of the change. The witness evidence No. 11 did not have been prepared at the time of the sale of each real estate, and the part that was prepared at the plaintiff’s request after several years is consistent with the above appraisal results.

③ The amount objectively confirmed through financial data, etc. by the Plaintiff’s wife on August 20, 201, when each of the instant real estate was sold to the Company B at the time of the purchase and sale of each of the instant real estate was only an OOO which was deposited in the deposit account in the name of the Company B, and there is no objective amount confirmed by the Plaintiff as being paid to the Company B.

④ At the time of acquisition of each of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff prepared and executed a certificate of real estate transactions stating the fact that the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant real estate to the HB in addition to the seal of approval agreement, and the HB reported the transfer income tax after the transfer of each of the instant real estate to the HB as the actual transaction price.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.