Jeju District Court 2012Guhap199 ( October 17, 2012)

Appellate Court Decision 201J2644 ( November 21, 2011)

It is legitimate to calculate the transfer margin on the basis of the standard market price by deeming that the actual transfer value cannot be confirmed in the exchange transaction.

In addition to the absence of market price appraisal at the time of exchange, there is a big difference between the value of each real estate subject to exchange and the sale contract and the value of the real estate exchanged in a meral and the retroactive appraisal conducted after the disposition of imposition, and the real value of each real estate subject to exchange is not consistent.

(Disposition) Revocation of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax, 2012Nu609

IsaA

Head of Jeju Tax Office

Jeju District Court Decision 2012Guhap199 decided October 17, 2012

April 10, 2013

April 24, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of KRW 000 on May 1, 201 against the plaintiff on May 1, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and the five-way "(d)(1) and (2) of the judgment of the first instance is used as follows, and the indication of real estate in annexed Form 1.2(b) is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except that the "OOO-dong 000 at Jeju" is corrected to O1-dong 0000 at Jeju, so it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(1) The actual transaction price, which is the basis for the calculation of gains on transfer, refers to the actual transaction price, not to the market price reflecting the objective exchange value, but to the amount actually agreed for the payment itself or at the time of the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du7171, Apr. 26, 2007); and where the transaction is an exchange, it is a value exchange based on the monetary value of the object, which is in particular on the basis of the market price appraisal of the object of exchange and entails the procedure for settlement of the difference in the appraisal value, it can be confirmed the actual transfer value; however, if the transaction is conducted simply by the method of paying the difference by determining only the difference in the value of the object of exchange under an agreement between the parties without the above process, it shall be impossible to confirm the actual transfer value (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du27592, Feb. 9, 2012; 98Du19841, Nov. 26, 1999).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, each of the real estate in this case is difficult to view that there is an objective market price as land or general building. ② The value of each of the real estate in this case is not determined based on objective grounds, such as market price appraisal, but the Plaintiff decided to sell each of the real estate in this case to YE, who is early, but (the Plaintiff claimed that the purchase price was determined at KRW 000). The Plaintiff and KimF, who is the exchanged party, did not accurately calculate the objective value of each of the real estate in this case, and the difference between the value of each of the real estate in this case and the exchange real estate in this case is set at KRW 00,00 and the value of each of the real estate in this case is determined at will, and the actual value of each of the real estate in this case, which is indicated at KRW 900,000, which is the real value of each of the real estate in this case, is not consistent.

3. Conclusion

Then, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.