early 2010 Heavy1696 ( October 24, 2011)

The acquisition value of the land shall be calculated by the retroactive appraisal value proved by the result of the request for appraisal by the court.

Even if a taxation was conducted by evaluating the market price as a publicly assessed individual land price because it was difficult to assess the market price at the time of inheritance in imposing transfer income tax on the transfer of inherited property, if the market price at the time of inheritance due to retroactive appraisal until the closing of argument in the lawsuit seeking revocation

2011Guhap1571 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

The AA

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

August 10, 2012

November 30, 2012

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on June 12, 2009, exceeding KRW 000,000, is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 20% shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on June 12, 2009 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2007. 7. 2. 자녀들인 이BB， 이CC， 이DD， 이EE(이하 원고와 함께 '원고 등'이라 한다)과 함께 남편인 망 이FF 소유의 평택시 안중읍 OO리 000 답 4，092㎡， 같은 리 000 답 192㎡， 같은 리 000 답 339㎡， 같은 리 000 답 2，842㎡， 같은 리 산 000 임야 9，275㎡(이하 '이 사건 부동산'라고 한다)를 상속을 원인으로 취득하였다.

B. On January 2, 2008, the Plaintiff et al. reported and paid KRW 000,000 to the Defendant with the value of the instant real estate as KRW 000. On January 8, 2009, the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff et al. omitted the return of inherited property equivalent to KRW 000,000, did not dispute the value of the instant real estate reported by the Plaintiff et al. as KRW 00.

C. On July 7, 2008, the Plaintiff, etc. transferred the instant real estate, and on August 29, 2008, the acquisition value of the instant real estate was KRW 000, and the transfer value was KRW 000,000, and reported and paid KRW 000,000 in capital gains tax for the year 2008.

D. On May 27, 2009, the Defendant: (a) considered the value at the time of inheritance of the instant real estate as not a KRW 000,000, which was reported by the Plaintiff, etc. in accordance with the inheritance tax assessment standard; (b) considered the inheritance tax as KRW 00 according to the publicly assessed individual land price; and (c) considered the value of the instant real estate as KRW 00,000, the

E. On June 12, 2009, the Defendant deemed that the acquisition value of the instant real estate by the Plaintiff, etc. was KRW 000,000, which was assessed at the time of the determination of inheritance tax, and imposed capital gains tax of KRW 000 (tax amount equivalent to KRW 3/11, which was the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares) on the Plaintiff in 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection on September 4, 2009 and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 14, 2010, but was dismissed on June 24, 201.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 to 5, Eul evidence 5-7, Eul evidence 1 to 2-5, Eul evidence 2-1 to 4, and Eul evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The transfer income tax on the plaintiff shall be calculated by using the acquisition value of KRW 000, the appraised value of the real estate at the time of July 2, 2007, which was the commencement date of inheritance, as the acquisition value.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Article 60(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that the value of the property, which is the standard value of inherited property, shall be the market value as of the commencement date of inheritance. In imposing capital gains tax on the transfer of inherited property, the tax authority assessed the acquisition value of the property as the individual officially assessed value for the reason that it is difficult for the tax authority to assess the market value at the time of inheritance of the property, and, even if the tax authority assessed the acquisition value of the property as the individual officially assessed value for the reason that it is difficult for the tax authority to assess the market value at the time of inheritance of the property, it should be determined whether the reasonable transfer margin and tax amount should be calculated on the basis of the market value, and whether the tax amount exceeds the reasonable tax amount. The "market value" in this context means, in principle, the objective exchange value formed through normal transactions, but it includes the value assessed in an objective and reasonable manner, so if there is no reliable appraisal value, it can be changed even if it was based on retroactive appraisal (see, Supreme Court Decision 200.

(2) 이 사건으로 돌아와 살피건대， 이 법원의 감정인 최QQ에 대한 감정촉탁결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 더해 보면 이 사건 토지의 2007. 7. 2. 당시의 시가에 관한 감정평 가액은 000원인 사실이 인정되고， 이 경우 원고가 이 사건 부동산의 양도로 납부하여야 할 정당한 양도소득세액은 별지 계산내역 기재와 같이 000원이다. 따라서 원고는 이 사건 토지의 양도에 관하여 위 양도소득세액 000원에서 이마 신고납부한 000원을 차감한 000원( = 000원 - 000 원)을 납부할 의무가 있는 것이므로，결국 이 사건 처분 위 000원을 초과하는 부분은 위법하다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.