The propriety of the disposition imposing tax by calculating the acquisition value as the conversion value as it is deemed that the actual acquisition value of the land in this case is not verified.

The instant disposition that recognized the acquisition value as the conversion value as the actual transaction value is not known and thus, deemed to constitute a case where the actual acquisition value of the instant land is not verifiable. The instant disposition is lawful.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses of Capital Gains)

2017Gudan68731 Demanding the revocation of disposition imposing capital gains tax

OraA

H Head of the tax office

on October 03, 2018

on October 018, 201

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s transfer income tax,00,000 won for the Plaintiff 201 X. XX. 201 X for the Plaintiff (additional tax)

(including) Revoking the disposition of the complaint (the date of the disposition stated in the complaint's claim "201 X. X." refers to "201X. XX.

XX. I seem to be a clerical error in XX.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 200X. X. XX. 유BB로부터 강원 OO군 OO면 OO리 000 전 0,000㎡(이하 '이 사건 쟁점 토지'라 한다)를 취득하였고, 이 사건 쟁점 토지에 관하여 201X. X.XX. OO지방법원 OO지원 201XOOXXXX호로 임의경매가 개시되었으며, 위 경매절차에서201X. XX. XX. 이 사건 쟁점 토지가 현CC에게 000,000,000원에 매각되었다.

B. The Plaintiff did not report the transfer income tax even though the pertinent land was sold by auction as above. Accordingly, the Defendant decided and notified the transfer value of the instant land as KRW 00,000,000, and the acquisition value as KRW 00,000,000 [the transfer value 】 (the officially announced price at the time of acquisition / the officially announced price at the time of transfer / the officially announced price at the time of acquisition 1], and decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional tax) for the transfer income tax corresponding to the year 201 X (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on X. X. 201 X.

The Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal in 20 XX. X. XX.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s spouse DoD calculated 00,000,000 won (i.e., lease deposit + KRW 000,000,000 + inventory value of KRW 000,000 + KRW 000,000 in inventory assets) with the instant land and OOOOOOOOOOOO-type OOO-type OO-type OO-type change into “the land category”; 00,000 square meters with the land price of this case; 00,000,000 square meters with the land price of this case; 00,000,000 square meters with the land price of this case; and 00,000,000,000 square meters with the land price of this case as a whole; and 00,000,000,000,000,000 won with the land price of this case as calculated under the agreement of this case; and 00,000,00,00.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

A) Article 97(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 20, 2016) provides that the acquisition value as necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value shall be based on the actual transaction value incurred in the acquisition of assets in calculating capital gains tax. In cases where it is impossible to verify the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition, the acquisition value as necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value shall be based on the actual transaction value, appraisal value, or conversion value prescribed by Presidential Decree. The amendment by Presidential Decree No. 26067, Feb. 3, 201

According to Articles 163(12) and 176-2(2) and (3) of the Act, where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction price, the acquisition value applied in the order of the standard market price shall be recognized where there are cases of trading of assets having identity or similarity with the relevant assets within three months before and after the date of acquisition.

B) Meanwhile, the actual transaction price of the pertinent asset, which is the basis for calculating the capital gains tax, is not the general market price that reflects the objective exchange value, but the actual transaction price itself or

In addition, in cases where a transaction that is the cause of acquisition is an exchange, the actual acquisition price may be verified if the transaction is a value exchange based on the objective monetary value of the object by following the market price appraisal of the object subject to exchange, accompanied by the procedure for settling the difference in the appraisal price, etc. However, in cases where the price of the object subject to exchange is determined by an agreement between the parties without the above process and the simple exchange is made by the method of paying the difference, the actual acquisition price may not be deemed as a case where the actual acquisition price can be confirmed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du11680, Oct. 24, 2013). The same applies to cases where the parties to the exchange contract arbitrarily assess and determine the value of the object subject to exchange and then computes the difference (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du27592, Feb. 9, 2012).

2) Review of the instant case

In light of the above legal principles, considering the records of No. 3 as a whole, the plaintiff and UB shall exchange between the plaintiff and UB with the whole land of this case "the operation rights of the non-party corporation" as X. X., and "the whole land of this case", while evaluating "the operation rights of the non-party corporation" as "the deposit for the lease of the store, the deposit for the use of store facilities and rights, the deposit amount of KRW 00,000,000,000, and the inventory amount of KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000 with the maximum amount of debt set up on the entire land of this case as a collateral and overdue interest of the non-party corporation (the non-party corporation's mortgage of this case).

The original benefits and other taxes and public charges are recognized as the fact that the exchange contract in which the plaintiff intends to settle (hereinafter referred to as the "exchange contract in this case").

However, in light of the following circumstances that can be seen by adding up the description of Eul evidence No. 14, the witness KimF, the testimony of SongG and the overall purport of pleadings, the Defendant deemed that the real acquisition value of the instant land constitutes a case where it is impossible to verify the actual acquisition value of the instant land, and cannot be deemed that there was any error in the instant disposition that recognized the acquisition value as the conversion value as the conversion value. The instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing it is without merit.

A) At the time of reporting acquisition tax on the entire land of this case, the Plaintiff reported the purchase price in total to KRW 000,000,000.

B) The fact that the Plaintiff did not undergo an appraisal of the market price of the entire land of this case at the time of the exchange contract of this case does not dispute this, and although the Plaintiff does not submit an objective assessment of the appraised value as to the operation right of a corporation other than the lawsuit under the contract, the Plaintiff did not submit an objective assessment details as to the appraised value, it seems that this is merely an arbitrary assessment by the parties to the exchange contract, and there is no other evidence to deem that there was an assessment of the operation right of a corporation other than the lawsuit or the objective monetary value of the entire land of this case.

C) The instant exchange contract focuses on virtual exchange, not on objective valuation of the entire land of small and medium corporations, but on virtual exchange. Thus, the agreement under the instant exchange contract is merely an agreement on the relative value of each subject of exchange, but cannot be deemed as an exchange of value based on the standard of "human monetary value". Therefore, the instant exchange contract constitutes a case where the actual transaction value cannot be known.

D) As above, it is difficult to know the real acquisition value of the instant land, and otherwise, within 20 XX. X. 3 months before or after the acquisition date of the instant land at issue, there is no evidence to view that there is credibility of the appraisal value recognized by two or more appraisal corporations on the said land within the same period or within the same period as the transaction example of assets identical or similar to the said land.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.