Seoul Administrative Court 2014Gudan5472 ( November 28, 2014)

The book value cannot be deemed as real acquisition value solely on the ground that the depreciation costs are appropriated on the basis of the book value.

It is insufficient to view that reasonable circumstances to deem that the book value was real acquisition value have been proven solely on the ground that the book value was appropriated as depreciation costs based on the book value at the time of filing a global income tax return, in the case where there is no data to estimate the market price, such as construction cost of a building at the time of its acquisition, deposit money, and

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income)

2015Nu30106 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

○ ○

Head of △ District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Gudan54472 decided November 28, 2014

2015.06.09

oly 23, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of imposing capital gains tax of 000 won (including additional tax) and special rural development tax of 000 won (including additional tax) for the plaintiff on August 1, 2013 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the case's "3-B. Judgment" in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Details of the alteration;

B. Determination

Even if the value of assets is entered in the book prepared and kept by the taxpayer, it cannot be deemed that the entry has the effect of confirming the actual acquisition value of assets, as well as that the entry must be presumed the actual acquisition value, or that the entry itself has the effect of accelerating the taxpayer, and thus, the taxpayer cannot make any assertion contrary to the entry (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu536, Feb. 9, 1988). Ultimately, since the tax authority bears the burden of proof as to the transfer value, as in this case, even if the Plaintiff reported that the actual transaction value cannot be confirmed due to lack of such evidence, etc., as in principle, the tax authority should prove the actual transaction value, which is the actual transaction value, and if it fails to prove it, it cannot be determined based on the conversion value, etc.: Provided, That even if the tax authority proves that the actual acquisition value of the book is the actual acquisition value, if the entry in the book is not based on the evidentiary documents related to the acquisition, it cannot be deemed that the actual transaction value is different from the actual transaction value or the book.

In the case of this case where there was no material to estimate the market price of the commercial part among the real estate of this case as of 1986, including the sale and purchase cases of neighboring real estate at the time of 1986, construction cost, lease deposit, and collateral security liability of the commercial part of the building of this case, the Plaintiff merely stated the acquisition value at the time of global income tax return on the basis that the Plaintiff included the depreciation cost of the commercial part of the building of this case on the basis of the book value, and there is no other evidence to prove that the book value of the commercial part of the building of this case can be deemed as real acquisition value, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Furthermore, if the Plaintiff reported as a person subject to simplified book from the global income tax of 200 to the time of global income tax of 201 and reported as a person subject to double-entry bookkeeping, and if the acquisition value was entered in the book at a higher amount than the standard market price without any documentary evidence such as a sales contract, it was difficult to exclude the Plaintiff’s assertion that the acquisition value would be excessively recorded in the standard market value.

① Considering that the Plaintiff’s commencement of filing a comprehensive income tax return by double-entry bookkeeping is 14 years after the acquisition of the instant real estate from 1986, it is not probable that the Plaintiff did not keep a contract, receipt, or other documentary evidence to verify the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition of the instant real estate.

② In filing a return of comprehensive income tax attributed to year 2001, the Plaintiff stated the value of the commercial building of this case as KRW 000, and the value of the commercial building of this case as KRW 000,000, which is the standard market price of the commercial building of this case, among the buildings of this case, and KRW 00,000, which is the standard market price of 1986, concerning the portion of the commercial building of this case, and KRW 00,00, which is the standard market price of 1986, is similar

③ Meanwhile, the book value of the instant real estate, including the housing portion, is stated as 006 won (02 won for house and appurtenant land + 004 won for commercial buildings and appurtenant land). The determination of the purchase price per unit is extremely exceptional in light of trade practice. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, based on the premise that the book value of the instant real estate portion is the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall admonish a judge;

Judges Seo-soon

Judgment Notarial decoration