If the classification of the value of land and buildings is unclear, it may be calculated in proportion to the standard market price as of the date of the supply contract.

The value of land and buildings is clearly distinguished from the value of the land and buildings, even if the value of the land and buildings is clearly divided, it includes cases where it is not by the genuine agreement between the parties, or it cannot be viewed as a reasonable classification from ordinary transaction practices.

Article 100 of the Income Tax Act

Daejeon District Court 2016Gudan100104 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

OO

OO Head of the tax office

November 10, 2016

oly 19, 2017

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 15, 1994, the Plaintiff purchased OOO-dong OO-dong OO-type OO-type OO-type (hereinafter “instant land”) at KRW O0,000.

B. The Plaintiff remarriedd with AA on August 23, 1995.

C. On the ground of the instant land, on September 2, 200, the building, which was approved for use on April 27, 2001, was newly constructed, "the fourth floor reinforced concrete building 1 and second-class neighborhood living facilities on the underground floor" (hereinafter "the instant building"), and on May 24, 2001, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of AA, the Plaintiff's wife, as to the instant building.

D. On January 22, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with BB to sell the instant land for KRW O0,000. On January 22, 2014, AA entered into a sales contract with CCC to sell the instant building for KRW O00,000. On February 5, 2014, the Plaintiff and AA completed the registration of ownership transfer at each share ratio of 1/2 in the name of BB and CCC with respect to the instant land and the instant building.

E. The Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer value of the instant land as KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000.

F. On August 11, 2015, the Defendant: (a) determined that the transfer value of the instant land and the instant building was not classified according to objective standards with respect to the Plaintiff on the grounds that the transfer value of the instant land and the instant building was not classified; and (b) determined that the transaction value of the instant land and the instant building was unclear; and (c) rendered a disposition to rectify the market price of the instant land by allocating the transfer value of the instant land and the instant building to the market price of OO and the converted acquisition value of the instant building in proportion to the standard market price ratio in proportion to the transfer value of the instant land and the instant building as OO and the converted acquisition value was divided into OO

G. The Plaintiff filed a tax appeal on September 1, 2015, but was dismissed on November 25, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

After concluding a sales contract to sell the instant land at KRW O0,00, the Plaintiff received only the purchase price. Since AA concluded a sales contract to sell the instant land at KRW O00,000, it was clear that the value of the instant land and the instant building was divided and there is no counter-proof that the said sales contract was actually prepared differently. The Defendant’s classification of the purchase price stated in the said sales contract based on the standard market price of each of the instant land and the instant building is unclear. However, in addition to the standard market price, the actual transaction price of the instant building is determined based on the size, location, form, structure, location, and goodwill of the instant land. The Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant land at KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

3. Determination of legality of the instant disposition

A. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached list.

B. Determination

According to Article 100(2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1358, Dec. 15, 2015); Article 166(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; and Article 64 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26071, Feb. 3, 2015), where land and buildings are transferred along with each other, and the transfer value is calculated based on the actual transaction price, if the classification of the value of the land and buildings is unclear, it shall be calculated in proportion to the value calculated according to the standard market price as of the date of the supply contract. Here, the term “when the classification of the value of the land and buildings is unclear” means not the case where the value of the land and buildings is not the case where the land and buildings are transferred without the distinction, but even if the value of the building is clearly divided by the genuine agreement between the parties, it shall be interpreted that it

In the instant case, it cannot be recognized that the Plaintiff separately managed each of the instant land and the instant building with AA in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings as indicated in the Evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 26, 27, and 2, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 14, 14, 14, 17, 18, 26, and 14, and the value of each of the instant land and the instant building based on the standard market price of the instant contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is lawful and justifiable.

① Each of the instant land and the instant building: “Standard Market Price>> The two are as indicated below, and accordingly, each of the transferred value amounts proposed to be named as listed below. The difference between the purchase price amounts in the contract and the transfer price amount proposed to be divided into the two. The Plaintiff and AAAA paid each transfer income tax (see, e.g., the transfer income tax amount originally reported in the following table) calculated as the purchase price amount in the contract. In addition, when the Plaintiff and AAA paid each transfer income tax (see, e.g., the transfer income tax amount initially reported in the following table), compared to each transfer income tax (see, e.g., the transfer income tax amount corrected and calculated in the table below) calculated as the transfer price amount proposed to be the difference, the profit of less than the difference between the two two transfer income tax (in addition, the profit corresponding to the local income

② The Plaintiff asserted that the 100 billion won of the instant land was solely sold between 209 and 2014, and that the 200 billion won of the instant land was less than the market price while selling the instant land and the instant building. Accordingly, according to the above evidence, the Plaintiff’s joint loan out of 100,000,000 OO-type O-type land and the same 100,000 O-type land owned by the Plaintiff were not owned by 200,000,000 won of the instant land, and the 10,0000,000 won of the instant land were less than the 10,000,0000,000 won of the instant land and the 130,000,000,000 won of the instant land were less than the 10,000,0000,000 won of the instant land, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff.

③ The Plaintiff asserted that the construction cost of the instant building was KRW 00 million, and that the construction cost of the instant building was KRW 00 million after remodeling in 2013, and that the sales price of the instant building was determined as KRW 00 million, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

④ On January 2, 2014, the Plaintiff received an OB list from the purchaser of the instant building and deposited KRW 20 million into the bank account in the name of the Plaintiff. On January 23, 2014, AB deposit was made from the purchaser of the instant building to the bank account under the name of the Plaintiff. (B) On February 5, 2014, AB deposit was made from the CCC (A1-2 +O won +O won) and each of the instant land and each of the instant land and each of the instant land were paid out to the Plaintiff for KRW 15,000,000, KRW 16,000,000, KRW 17,000,000, KRW 2,000,000, and KRW 16,000,000,000, KRW 16,000,000,000.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.