Whether to recognize the actual transaction price

Until the lawsuit of this case is brought, no data can be submitted to confirm each actual transaction price of the plaintiff's owner, while the approval seal contract at the time of transfer contains the purchase price, and the disposition based on the actual transaction price is legitimate.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. 을제1호증의 1,2, 갑제1호증, 갑제3호증의 1,2의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 보태어 보면, 원고가 1989. 4. 15. 소외 한ㅇㅇ으로부터 서울 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 266의 24 대 119평방미터 및 위 지상 목조 기와지붕 단층 주택 36.36평방미터를 취득하였다가 그 후 위 단층 주택을 헐고 그 곳에 벽돌조 슬래브 지붕 2층 주택 1층 50.61평방미터 2층 48.93평방미터 지층 51.99평방미터를 신축한 후 같은 해 11.30. 소외 홍ㅇㅇ에게 위 대지 및 신축한 2층 주택을 양도함으로써 발생한 양도소득에 대하여 피고는 부동산을 취득한 후 1년 이내에 양도한 경우라 하여 검인계약서 상의 매매대금 93,000,000원을 양도 당시의 실지거래가액으로 보고, 취득 당시의 실지거래가액은 검인계약서 상의 매매대금 50,000,000원을 그 당시의 기준시가에 의하여 계산한 대지 및 신축 전의 단층 주택가액에 비례하여 안분계산함으로써 대지의 매매대금을 금 47,893,054원으로 하고 신축한 2층 주택에 대하여는 그 자산의 취득에 소요된 실지거래가액을 알 수 없다 하여 위 양도 당시의 실지거래가액을 그 당시의 기준시가에 의하여 계산한 대지 및 신축된 2층 주택가액에 비례하여 안분계산함으로써 2층 주택의 실지거래가액을 산출한 후 소득세법 시행령(1990. 12. 31. 대통령령 제13194호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제170조 제1항 단서의 규정에 의하여 금 24,165,932원으로 결정하여 그 합계 금 72,058,986원을 취득 당시의 실지거래가액으로 보아 위 양도 및 취득 당시의 각 실지거래가액에 의한 양도가액 및 취득가액으로 양도차익을 계산한 끝에 청구취지 기재 과세처분을 한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

2. The plaintiff acquired a single-story house prior to the new construction of the land and its ground of this case in 60,000,000 won, and thereafter, paid 2,464,000 won for construction expenses, such as construction expenses, registration expenses, acquisition tax, brokerage fees, etc. in order to reduce the above second-story house and to newly construct the above second-story house, and thereby, paid 106,164,000 won for the actual transaction price required for the acquisition of the land of this case and its second-story house. The plaintiff sold the above site and its second-story house to the Hong Byung, and thus, the actual transaction price at the time of selling the above site and its second-story is KRW 120,00,000,000. Thus, the defendant should have calculated gains from transfer based on the actual transaction price at the time of transfer and acquisition, and the taxation disposition in this case is unlawful.

However, in light of the whole purport of pleadings in the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, 3, 4, and 2-1,2, and 3 of the evidence Nos. 2-1,2, as seen earlier, the plaintiff acquired the above new house prior to the new construction of the land and its ground No. 2-1,3, as seen earlier, and then purchased the second floor house, and then transferred it to the defendant on December 28, 1989, and did not make a final return on the profits from transfer and its voluntary payment, and did not submit any data to confirm each actual transaction price of the plaintiff's assertion until the lawsuit in this case. On the other hand, the approval seal of the transfer at the time of the above transfer did not show that the purchase price was 93,00,000 won, and the purchase price was 50,000,000 won for the new construction of the land at the time of the acquisition, and thus, it can be recognized that the other real transaction price was 960,00,00,000,00.

3. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground that the Defendant’s taxation disposition of this case was unlawful is unfair, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.