The third sale contract of the 4th transfer contract is the contract which is made voluntarily for the loan of the plaintiff.

(1) Determination of transfer income tax shall be made by selecting a contract which conforms to the comprehensive actual transaction details at the time of transaction, ① the current status of the subject matter of transaction, ③ rational distribution ratio of the sales price, ④ the statements of the relevant persons such as the broker, etc. at the time of transaction, ⑤ the price relationship, and ④

Articles 97, 100, etc. of the former Income Tax Act

2016Guhap10126 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

】 】

○ Head of tax office

September 224, 2016

October 27, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 271,656,880 against the plaintiff on August 12, 2014 by the former defendant of the Gu office shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the entire real estate of this case, including a land related to a golf range listed in the separate sheet owned by Aa (hereinafter “instant golf range site”) and aa, and abb-owned land-based golf range facilities (hereinafter “facilities of the instant golf range”) in the above site-based land-based land-based golf range facilities (hereinafter “facilities of the instant golf range”), 1/6 of △△-15, 487 square meters in the same Ri △△△△-6, 45 square meters in △△△△-6, 10, 180 square meters in the same land-based △△△△△△-1, 180 square meters in the same household-based △△△△△△-1, 180 square meters in the same household-10, 180 square meters (hereinafter “cc and other land”), 19-7, 412, 4625 square meters in forest and field-426 square meters in each of this case.

B. On April 16, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s name on March 16, 2013, with regard to the new △△-9 Forest, 7,412 square meters, △△△-22 forest and 265 square meters, △△△-14 forest and 6,493 square meters in the same Ri, among the entire real estate of this case, on the grounds of sale. Meanwhile, on the same date, the new △△-9 forest and 412 square meters in the same Ri △△-9 forest and 25 square meters in the same 25 square meters in the same 20-9 forest and 37 square meters in the same 25-9 square meters in the same 20-5 forest and 45 square meters in each of the new △△△△△△△△, 250 square meters in the same 25-7 forest and 25-18-1, 2013.

D. On August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer value (actual transaction price) of the instant land as KRW 1,232,200,000,000, and reported and paid KRW 35,15,508,000, by calculating the acquisition value (actual transaction price) as KRW 1,232,20,000, and other necessary expenses.

E. As a result of the field investigation of capital gains tax, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land en bloc without distinguishing the instant land from other real estate, such as the instant golf practice course site, and calculated KRW 398,00,000 calculated based on the standard market price pursuant to Article 100(2) of the Income Tax Act as the acquisition value of the instant land and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 468,876,000, capital gains tax belonging to the year 2013. (f) On August 12, 2014, the Defendant filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 4, 2014, and the Tax Tribunal divided the value of the subject matter under the sales contract by the owner, thereby making a reinvestigation of the acquisition value of the instant land and making a re-audit decision on August 3, 2015 on the ground that the tax base and tax amount should be corrected according to the results

G. Accordingly, on November 23, 2015, the Defendant considered 700 million won as the acquisition price (actual transaction price) of the instant land entered in the sales contract in which the registration of the instant land was entered in the exhibition following a reinvestigation, and rendered a decision of correction to reduce the capital gains tax of KRW 197,219,123 for the year 2013 (hereinafter the above reduction of KRW 271,656,880 for the remaining amount after reduction of KRW 271,680 (the fractional disposition of KRW 10) on August 12, 2014 (the ground for recognition) as the disposition of this case. [The ground for recognition] There is no dispute, and written evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 8, 10, 4, and 12 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The actual transaction price of the instant land is KRW 1.2 billion, which was prepared by the Plaintiff in order to acquire the instant land, and the sales contract dated March 16, 2013, prepared by the Plaintiff on June 17, 2009, was unilaterally set the purchase price of the instant land as KRW 700 million without the Plaintiff’s consent. Therefore, the acquisition price of the instant land is not KRW 700 million, but KRW 1.2 billion, not the Defendant’s assertion. Accordingly, the instant disposition on a different premise ought to be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments and evidence Nos. 8, 10, and Eul Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 12, the following facts may be acknowledged.

A) On March 27, 2008, the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract (Evidence A No. 5) stating that the entire real estate of this case (However, in the process of preparing a sales contract, a part of the land was excluded from the subject matter of sale or any other land was added) shall be purchased at KRW 5.9 billion, and the sale price shall be treated in a lump sum and the detailed parcel price shall be determined later.

B) Upon a request by aa that the Plaintiff shall report the transfer income tax for each owner.

On March 28, 2008, between Aa and Aa, a sales contract (No. 2, No. 1, No. 2) was prepared to purchase the instant land and facilities for the golf practice range in terms of purchase price of KRW 5.27 billion, and between CC and CC on June 7, 2008, taking into account the price of the instant land and its neighboring land, the purchase price of KRW 630 million (the purchase price of the instant land seems to be set at KRW 550 million among them) calculated in consideration of the price of the instant land and the price of the neighboring land, etc. between CC and CC on June 7, 2008, respectively, to purchase KRW 60 million (the purchase price of the instant land in general is set at KRW 50 million).

C) After reducing the total purchase price of the instant real estate from Aa, the Plaintiff drafted a sales contract (No. 12 evidence No. 1), 300 million won on June 27, 2008, in order to obtain a loan on security as the site of the instant golf driving range, with a sale and purchase price of the instant golf driving range, with a sale and purchase price of the instant golf driving range, cc and other land of KRW 4.2 billion, with a sale and purchase price of KRW 4.4 billion on June 17, 2009, c and c purchase the instant land of KRW 1.4 billion on an annual increase of KRW 1.4 billion (3 billion on June 17, 2009, hereinafter referred to as "No. 3.5 billion on an annual increase of KRW 4.5 billion on a sale and purchase price of the instant land between c and c and 3.4 billion on a sale and purchase price of the instant land of KRW 4.5 billion on a sale and purchase price of the instant land.

E) At the time of the Defendant’s on-the-spot investigation, Kim Young-young, which arranged the entire real estate sales contract of this case at the time of the Defendant’s on-site investigation, stated to the effect that “No. 3 sales contract of this case was made only for loan purposes, and does not evaluate the value of the land of this case as KRW 1.2 billion or determine as KRW 1.2 billion by mutual agreement between the parties.” The Plaintiff stated to the effect that “hhh, which is a broker of the Plaintiff, would sell the land of this case at the last 1.2 billion won or more, made a third sales contract in order to submit it as the basis for the acquisition of the land at the time of transfer

F) A certified judicial scrivener jba, who performed the registration of transfer of the entire real estate of this case, stated in the Defendant’s on-site investigation that “The purchase price under the sales contract No. 4 was determined under an agreement with the Plaintiff in consideration of the officially announced land price, neighboring land price, and the purchase price under the second sales contract.” Meanwhile, at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the land of this case, the standard market price of the said land was limited to 6.7% of the total real estate price at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the land of this case. The Plaintiff filed an application for the registration of acquisition tax

2) The following circumstances revealed by the above recognition, namely, ① the Plaintiff agreed to subsequently determine the sale price of the entire real estate (aa and the entire real estate). The total amount of the sale price of the entire real estate in this case continues to be reduced at the Plaintiff’s request and the sales contract was finally made up. ② The price of the land in this case was calculated at a level of KRW 50 million in consideration of the approximate price of neighboring land in the second sale contract drawn up by each owner, and the process of acquiring the land in this case and the ratio of standard market price of the entire real estate in comparison with the standard market price of the land in this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the sale price of the land in this case is higher than the market price at the time of the sale price of this case is difficult to fully obtain acquisition tax. ③ The Plaintiff’s assertion that the sale price in this case was calculated at a price for the sale of the land in this case at a price for sale and purchase, and the Plaintiff’s construction of the sale price in this case did not appear to have been prepared at the time of the Plaintiff’s request for sale and sale and sale contract in this case.

3. Conclusion

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

.