National High Court Decision 2007west0951 (Law No. 18, 2007)

The purchase price on the seal of approval agreement shall not be deemed a real transfer value.

Comprehensively taking account of evidence and testimony, the disposition of this case where the actual transfer value is KRW 360 million, but the actual transfer value is KRW 730 million is inappropriate.

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

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 221,784,220 to the Plaintiff on July 5, 2006 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 28, 2001, the Plaintiff awarded a successful bid of KRW 335,100,00 and transferred the registration of ownership transfer on January 10, 2002 on May 2, 2002 to four persons, such as Non-Party Jung-gu, ○○○○○○-dong, 902, Dong-dong, 1-dong, 1-dong, 1-dong, 1-dong, 1-dong, 502, and 335,100,000, and the title registration was completed.

(b) On May 8, 2002, the Plaintiff made a preliminary return of the transfer income tax base to the Defendant on May 8, 2002, with the acquisition value of KRW 335,100,000 and the transfer value of KRW 360,000,000, calculated accordingly; and

C. However, the Defendant determined that the actual transfer value of the instant real estate was KRW 730,00,000 as a result of a field investigation related to the transfer of the instant real estate, and accordingly, issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on July 5, 2006, which additionally corrected KRW 221,784,220 as the transfer income tax for the portion reverted to the year 202.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

(a)the master of the plaintiff;

The Plaintiff, after being awarded a successful bid for the instant real estate, assigned the sales price of KRW 360,00,000 in consideration of the degree of intention and cost-bearing following the removal of the instant real estate. However, the instant disposition that the Defendant deemed the actual transfer price to KRW 730,00,000 based on the seal of approval written between the Plaintiff and his unawareness in the process of registering the transfer of ownership of the instant real estate is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 19 and the purport of the whole argument in the testimony of Jinsung as witness, the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for KRW 33.5.1 million at the five times of the first appraisal price at the time of the public auction procedure of real estate rent of KRW 838 million at the Jung-gu District Court on Nov. 28, 2001. However, the plaintiff did not reverse the above fact that the real estate of this case was awarded a successful bid for KRW 274,59840, the minimum auction price of KRW 33.5.1 million at the five times of the public auction, taking into account the name of the real estate of this case, management expenses and interest burden on the loan of the real estate of this case, and concluded a sales contract for KRW 36.0 million on Apr. 10, 200 and transferred KRW 36.0 million to 4,000,0000 for the real estate of this case.

Therefore, as seen above, the instant disposition that the Defendant deemed the actual transfer value of the instant real estate as KRW 36.0 million, even though the actual transfer value of the instant real estate was KRW 730 million is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.