Suwon District Court-2014-Gu Group-87 (No. 17, 2014)

Considering that the value of land and buildings, etc. is unclear, the disposition calculated in proportion to the value calculated according to the standard market price is legitimate.

In cases where the classification of values is unclear, the classification of values is classified, but there is no credibility in light of objective values, transaction purposes, disclosure prices, etc., including cases where the classification of values is not by a genuine agreement between the parties or cannot be viewed as a reasonable classification of values for any purpose other than tax avoidance by substantially deviating from trade practices.

Article 100 (Calculation of Gains on Transfer of Income Tax Act)

2014Nu54799 Revocation of disposition to impose capital gains tax

NewO

O Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Gudan87 Decided September 17, 2014

March 18, 2015

April 8, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 71,807,880 against the Plaintiff on March 5, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s argument under Paragraph (2) below; and (b) thus, the reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion of the trial

In the trial of the court, the Plaintiff asserts that the evidence No. 2, which is a package contract, was written in the form of a provisional contract, and the Plaintiff and the Korea-OO concluded a separate contract for each sectionally owned building by taking into account the location, area, condition, lease, existence of limited real rights, etc. as stated in the evidence No. 4-1 through No. 16 according to the agreement on individual transactions, and thus, the Plaintiff’s transfer does not constitute an unclear case.

In light of the circumstances stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, it is difficult to believe that the testimony of Gap Nos. 3 and 6 and the witness NaO of the trial party corresponds to the plaintiff's assertion that the contract was reversed and the contract was concluded individually, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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