Seoul Administrative Court 2010Gudan27960 ( November 08, 2011)

Seocho 2010west 1958 (Law No. 9.27, 2010)

That is determined as the standard market price due to unclear acquisition value

In light of the fact that a sales contract and a written confirmation of transactions are deemed to have been prepared retroactively, and that a third party, who is not a transferor, has purchased land from a third party, but submitted a sales contract concluded with a transferor, it is insufficient to recognize that the acquisition price falls under the actual transaction price.

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act

2011Nu4305 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

Jeonn

Head of Nowon Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Gudan27960 decided November 8, 2011

July 11, 2012

August 29, 2012

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's disposition of imposing capital gains tax of 000 won for the year 2006 and special rural development tax of 000 won for the plaintiff on March 2, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

Inasmuch as it is clear that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land in 000 won in fact, the Plaintiff asserts that the gains on transfer should be calculated on the actual acquisition value. However, as seen from various evidence and factual relations in the first instance trial, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant land reported the transfer value to the Plaintiff at KRW 000, along with the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression at the time of filing a transfer income tax, and the real estate sales contract and the confirmation document submitted by the Plaintiff are deemed to have been made ex post facto and it is difficult to accept them as they are, it is difficult to deem that the actual acquisition value of the instant land is 00 won, and further, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.