Appropriateness of acquisition value and transfer value of the real estate at issue

No objective data, such as financial transaction data to recognize the acquisition value and transfer value of real estate at issue, were submitted, and witness testimony was difficult to believe, the instant disposition is legitimate.

Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2016Gudan54919

fixed**

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

January 11, 2017

d February 10, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 145,569,934 against the Plaintiff on December 3, 2014 is revoked (which appears to be written by mistake in January 7, 2015).

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2005. 11. 28. 정@@으로부터 서울 성** 옥** 38 2층 201호(이하'이 사건 부동산'이라 한다)를 취득하였다가 2008. 11. 11. $$$$$$주택조합에게 양도하였다.

B. On February 2, 2009, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer value of the instant real estate as KRW 7,1520,000, and the acquisition value as KRW 28,385,500 (=the purchase price as KRW 27 million + the acquisition tax, etc. + KRW 1,385,500) and paid KRW 5,824,180.

C. On December 3, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff prepared a double contract at the time of the transfer of the instant real estate, and determined and notified the Plaintiff to additionally pay capital gains tax of KRW 226,947,470 for the Plaintiff in 2008 on the premise that the transfer value is KRW 400 million.

D. The Plaintiff asserted that both the acquisition value and the transfer value of the instant real estate are 250 million won, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. The Tax Tribunal re-examines objective evidence, such as financial evidence, etc. on the acquisition value of the instant real estate, and decided to the effect that “the tax base and the tax amount are corrected according to the results, and the remaining appeal is dismissed.”

E. The Defendant conducted a reinvestigation to verify the acquisition value of the instant real estate according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal and conducted a reinvestigation on January 14, 2016 to the Plaintiff KRW 151,148,500 (=).

A decision of correction was made to reduce the transfer income tax of 87,201,728 won for the year 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case") by calculating the purchase price of KRW 150 million + acquisition tax of KRW 1,148,500,000, and reducing the transfer income tax of KRW 87,201,728 for the year 201.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), each;

The purport of all pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) 원고는 2005. 7. 26. 정@@과 사이에 이 사건 부동산을 2억 5,000만 원에 매수하는 내용으로 매매계약을 체결하였고 매매대금으로 총 2억 5,000만 원을 지급하였으므로 이 사건 부동산의 취득가액은 2억 5,000만 원이다.

2) 원고는 2008. 11. 11. $$$$$$주택조합과 사이에 이 사건 부동산을 4억 원에 매도하는 매매계약을 체결하였으나 $$$$$$주택조합에서는 위 매매대금 중 1억 5,000만 원을 지급하지 않았고 이에 원고는 **종합개발 주식회사(이하 '소외 회사'라 한다)에게 위 매매잔대금의 수령에 관한 권한을 위임하여 소외 회사가 $$$$$$주택조합을 상대로 토지매입대금반환 청구의 소(서울&&지방법원 2013가합100&&& 사건)를 제기하여 승소하였으나, $$$$주택조합이 항소한 사건(서울고등법원 2013나202**** 사건)에서 소외 회사가 패소하였고, 다시 원고가 대법원에 상고(대법원 2014다23****)하였는데, 위 서울고등법원 판결(이하 '이 사건 민사판결'이라 한다)의 취지에 따르면 $$$$$$주택조합의 예산매입대금을 초과하는 매매계약은 조합규약상의 '예산으로 정한 사항 외에 조합원에 부담이 될 계약'에 해당하므로 조합장에게는 예산을 초과하는 매매대금으로 매수할 권한이 없고, 따라서 총회의 의결을 받지 아니한 예산초과부동산에 관한 매매계약은 $$$$$$주택조합에게는 효력이 없다는 것이므로 이 사건 부동산의 양도가액은 2억 5,000만 원이다.

3) Therefore, the acquisition value and transfer value of the instant real estate were all KRW 250 million, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition based on a different premise was unlawful.

B. Determination

1) Whether the acquisition price of the instant real estate was 250 million won or not

A) The tax authority shall bear the burden of proving the tax base that is the basis of taxation in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the income tax disposition, and the tax base is deducted from necessary expenses, so the tax authority shall bear the burden of proving the income and necessary expenses in principle. However, since the tax authority is not only favorable to the taxpayer, but most of the facts generating necessary expenses are located within the territory under the control of the taxpayer, and thus the tax authority is difficult to prove. Thus, if it is reasonable to prove the taxpayer by taking into account the difficulty in proving it, equity between the parties, etc., it accords with the concept of fairness (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du16137, Oct. 26, 2007).

나) 다음과 같은 사정들을 고려해 보면 이 사건 부동산의 취득가액이 2억 5,000만 원이라는 점에 부합하는 갑 5호증의 2, 갑 7호증의 1 내지 3의 각 기재와 증인 김##의 증언은 믿기 어렵고 갑 8, 12호증의 각 기재만으로는 이를 인정하기 부족하며,달리 이 사건 부동산의 취득가액이 2억 5,000만 원을 초과함을 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

① There was no objective data, such as financial transaction data, which found that the Plaintiff paid KRW 250 million as the purchase price at the time of the purchase of the instant real estate.

② 원고는 이 사건 부동산에 관한 양도소득세 예정신고 당시 이 사건 부동산매수 당시 계약서라며 매매대금 2,700만 원으로 된 허위의 계약서(갑 5호증의 1)와 이사건 부동산 매도 당시 계약서라며 매매대금 7,152만 원으로 된 허위의 계약서(갑 9호증의 2)를 진정한 계약서라며 제출한 바 있고, 원고가 진정한 내용으로 작성되었다고 주장하는 매매대금 2억 5,000만 원이라고 되어 있는 매매계약서(갑 5호증의 2)는 중개인 없이 원고와 전 소유자인 정@@ 사이의 매매계약서로 정@@은 이미 사망하였고 중개인도 없다. 이러한 점을 종합하면 그 진정성을 신뢰하기 어렵다.

③ According to the instant civil judgment, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that real estate under almost the same conditions as the instant real estate was traded at KRW 250 million around that time. However, it was not recognized that the instant civil judgment traded the said real estate at KRW 250 million around that time.

2) Whether the transfer value of the instant real estate was 250 million won or more

The Plaintiff******* the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Association to sell the instant real estate for KRW 400 million has no dispute between the parties, so the transfer value of the instant real estate is KRW 400 million.

In related civil cases,****************************************** whether the contract on the real estate of this case was effective against the association upon the final decision that there was no validity of the sales contract on the real estate of this case, the Plaintiff’s submission of the Plaintiff’s request for correction may not be regarded as the current transfer value of the real estate of this case as KRW 250 million, only on the basis of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, even though the Plaintiff may make a request for correction to the tax authority pursuant to Article 45-2(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.