Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan15596 ( October 12, 2014)

Seocho 2012west 1763 (06.08)

A corrective disposition that denies the actual transaction price at the time of filing a report and is confirmed to be legitimate;

Although a contract was prepared at the request of a purchaser and paid the actual transaction price, a disposition to impose capital gains tax after denying and correcting the actual transaction price at the time of new construction of a health care unit, such as the confirmation of transaction transactions through the former owner and the details of payment, is legitimate.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income)

2014Nu3084 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

KoreaA

Head of Eastern Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan15596 decided February 12, 2014

January 21, 2015

February 10, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on February 15, 2012 by the Defendant is revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on February 15, 2012 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance, excluding the part of local income tax, shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax OOO or OOO or OO or o or o or o or o or o or o or o or o or o

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the parts determined additionally in the following paragraphs: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

From the 2nd 5th 5th 6th to the "after the division", "after the land in this case is divided" shall be read as "after the above OO 390-9 3,034 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "land subject to expropriation") regardless of the reduction of the area due to the division of land."

"Acquisition value" for the second 12th th th th th th th th, shall be added in proportion to the value calculated according to the publicly assessed individual land price at the time of the acquisition of the two parcels of this case.

○ 14th, “the Plaintiff,” which shall be read as “the earlyB,” and “CC Development,” which shall be reduced to 15th, shall be deleted.

2. Additional determination

A. Acquisition value of the instant land

As seen earlier, each of the sale price stated in the approval form written at the time of acquisition of the instant land and the confirmation form on the transaction of real estate in the Plaintiff’s name is an OOO member, and in particular, the latter confirms the substance of the transaction to ChoB, separate from issuing the receipt of the same amount, and affixed his seal imprint and attaching his seal impression thereto, so that it can be seen that it was important evidence to see that it was made as to the sale price between ChoB and ChoB.

On the other hand, the receipt (No. 2) stating the purport of the full payment of the purchase price and the details of the receipt of the OOOB, which the Plaintiff was an agent of the ChoB, is affixed with a leCC, and there is no objective data that can identify the relationship with the leCC, including the power of representation, and there is no objective data that can identify the relationship with the leCC, including address and contact details, and even if examining the financial data related to the receipt of the purchase price, it is difficult to recognize that the OOB was paid more than the OOB by examining the financial data related to the receipt of the purchase price. However, there is no objective data that can be evaluated as the receipt of the purchase price between the Plaintiff and the OB.

Therefore, it is reasonable to determine the value of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land from ChoB as an OOB, and on the other hand, the circumstance that the Plaintiff had sold nearby similar lands to OOB prior to the acquisition of the instant land cannot be grounds to view that it is different from the above recognition in light of the unique circumstances indicated earlier, such as the developments leading up to the purchase and disposal of the instant land and the determination of the price.

The plaintiff's assertion that the acquisition value of the land of this case is an OOO won is not acceptable.

(b) Methods of calculating the acquisition value of expropriated land;

As the Plaintiff asserted, if the Plaintiff purchased the entire land at a uniform price per unit area by setting and purchasing the entire land as a whole, without putting a ceiling on the value of the two parcels of land of this case as to the two parcels of land of this case, as so, the entire land is purchased at an equal price per unit area, and thus, the acquisition price of the expropriated land calculated accordingly shall be calculated by multiplying the unit area by the area of the expropriated land subject to a per unit area. As such, the acquisition price of the expropriated land of this case calculated accordingly is approximately KRW OO (OOO (below less than KRW 3,034 square meters) x 3,034 square meters per unit area). Therefore, compared to the OOO won calculated proportionally by the Defendant according to the publicly assessed individual land

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was unlawful for this reason.

3. Conclusion

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