Whether the actual transfer value of the real estate of this case can be seen as long.

The actual transfer value of the real estate of this case is not the transaction value of the plaintiff's assertion but the transfer value stated in the contract.

2015Gudan56086 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

November 25, 2015

February 17, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant imposed a tax on the Plaintiff on August 7, 2014 at KRW 000,00,000,000,000.

The cancellation shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 16, 2002, the Plaintiff: (a) on July 16, 2002, the land area of Dosan-dong, Busan Metropolitan City Do ○○ and the land buildings

The 5/50 shares (hereinafter referred to as "the shares of this case") among the real estate in this case was acquired, but transferred to the rightB on September 3, 2008.

B. On August 26, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) on August 26, 2008, the transfer value of the shares in this case to the

○○00,000 won and the acquisition value shall be calculated as the actual transaction value of ○0,000 won and the capital gains tax.

○○○○ source was scheduled and paid.

C. The Defendant, on August 7, 2014, declared that the Plaintiff was under-reported as a false double contract.

Under the premise that the transfer value of the shares in question is KRW 000,000,000, the Plaintiff issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff to additionally pay the capital gains tax of 2008 to the Plaintiff (including ○○○○○, and ○○○○, additional tax for insincereful payment) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff completed the pre-trial procedure.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 4, 5, 10 to 14, Eul 1, et al.

Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The sales contract of May 26, 2008, which was based on the premise of the disposition of this case by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "first contract of this case") was merely the draft, and the Plaintiff presented to the purchaser rightsB an offer to the purchaser rightsB, but there was no fact that the rightB expressed its consent, and thus there was no conclusion of a sales contract with the purchase price under the first contract of this case. The Plaintiff and the rightBB concluded a sales contract with the purchase price of this case as KRW 00 million. Therefore, since the transfer price of the instant shares was KRW 00 million, the Defendant’s disposition of this case made on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) At the time of the Plaintiff’s sale of the instant real estate to the rightB, the rightB owned the remainder (45/50 shares) other than the Plaintiff’s shares out of the instant real estate, but the Plaintiff, who is staying in Canada, consulted with the rightB and the sales of the instant outstanding shares through KimCC, one’s own birth.

(2) Although most of the contents of the instant contract written in the name of the Plaintiff and the rightB were written and printed in the Korean language document program, the specific amount and timing of payment of the down payment, intermediate payment, and balance, the time of delivery of real estate, the seller’s name, resident registration number, address, and agent were written.

The contract contains a printing of the purchase price of KRW 00 billion, and it states that "the contract amount of KRW 00 billion is paid on May 27, 2008, the intermediate payment of KRW 00 billion on May 27, 2008, the payment of KRW 00 billion in balance, the payment of KRW 00 billion on August 31, 2008, and the delivery of real estate is " August 31, 2008". The purport of the contract is that "the delivery of real estate is made on August 31, 2008." The seller's name, resident registration number, seller's address, and the name of KimCC's agent is written on the seller's seal, but the buyer's name, resident registration number and address are printed on the real estate, but the owner's name and address are not affixed to the owner's seal. The purpose of this contract is to cancel the price of real estate as the real estate's establishment of collateral security by Busan Metropolitan City and Do seller's mortgage as the seller is responsible for 000.5 billion.

(3) The plaintiff on April 3, 2008, a certified copy of Korean national registry necessary to sell the shares in this case.

On May 2008, 2008, KimCC issued a certificate of the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression on April 23, 2008, on the date when it was prepared to confer the authority to conclude a sale contract and transfer ownership on the instant real estate as the purchase price of KRW 000,000,000.

(4) A sales contract drawn up on July 1, 2008 between the Plaintiff and the rightB (hereinafter referred to as “the second contract”) is written and printed in the Korean language document program, all of which are signed and printed.

The purport of the contract is that the purchase price is KRW 00 billion, the contract is paid on July 1, 2008, the intermediate payment KRW 00 billion, the payment on July 1, 2008, and the balance KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The delivery date of the real estate is a blank space, and the Busan Metropolitan City Office of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, which is located on the real estate as a special agreement, shall cancel the seizure by the balance date. All the names, resident registration numbers, and addresses of the seller and the buyer are printed, and the seller’s and the buyer’s rightsB’s agent are affixed seals, and the Plaintiff’s agent is not written.

(5) On May 27, 2008, KRW 00 billion and KRW 00,000 on September 3, 2008, respectively, were deposited in the Plaintiff’s account under the name of titleB.

(6) ADD’s right to collateral security was cancelled on May 30, 2008, and the Busan Metropolitan City’s seizure on the part of the instant shares was cancelled on September 3, 2008 on September 5, 2008 due to the cancellation of September 3, 2008.

(7) On September 20, 2006, the appraised value of 45/50 shares out of the instant real estate is ○○○○, while the competentB participated in a voluntary auction on 45/50 shares out of the instant real estate, and was awarded a successful bid at KRW 00 million on June 1, 2007.

(8) Meanwhile, the Defendant found the instant primary contract and the power of attorney, certificate of personal seal, and certified copy of the register of overseas Koreans in the course of tax investigation with respect to the rightB, and rendered the instant disposition on the premise that the transfer value of the instant shares is KRW 000,000,000 under the instant primary contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 2, 3, 5 through 9, Eul 2 and 3, and all pleadings

The purpose of body

C. Determination

Considering the following circumstances revealed through the above facts and the evidence revealed, it is reasonable to view the real transfer value of the shares in this case as KRW 000,000,000,000,000 stated in the contract of this case, rather than KRW 00,000,000,000 of the plaintiff's assertion.

shall not be held.

① compared to the instant contract No. 2, the instant contract is more specific and actual in sales.

The down payment and intermediate payment were paid on the date stated in the first contract of this case.

② In the first contract of this case, a special agreement states that the value of real estate transferred shall be KRW 00 billion, as the subject matter of a special agreement. This is consistent with the purchase price stated in the second contract of this case.

③ The rightB kept the instant first contract in which the purchase price was stated as KRW 000,000,000, together with the power of attorney, etc. stating the purchase price as KRW 00,000,000.

④ From March 2008 to March 2008, the Plaintiff collected the opinion of the Plaintiff to trade KRW 00 billion with the rightB, and prepared the instant first contract causing KRW 00 billion. The date of the seller’s measurement by preparing the instant first contract causing the purchase price to be KRW 00 billion.

Although the document was delivered after completion to the person, the rightB refused to adjust the co-ownership relationship through auction, and again made a sales contract with the amount of KRW 000 million on May 27, 2008, and then made an oral payment and intermediate payment after concluding a sales contract on May 27, 2008, the rightB made up the second contract.

The rightB entered into an oral sales contract without preparing a sales contract, and thereafter the Plaintiff’s assertion

According to the above, it is difficult to readily understand that the Plaintiff, who was not well aware, paid KRW 00 million to the Plaintiff.

According to the plaintiff's assertion, it is difficult to easily understand the issue of this case by obtaining successful bid through auction, which is an uncertain and takes time to lower the purchase price as KRW 000 million, and it is difficult to easily understand that 45/50 of the sale price of this case among the real estate on September 20, 2006, the appraised value of the issue of this case's share is KRW 00 million and KRW 45/50 of the sale price of this case's real estate, in light of the appraisal value of 45/50 of the real estate of this case's real estate of this case's investment, and KRW 40 billion and KRW 45/500 of the sale price of this case's real estate of this case's real estate of this case's investment from the plaintiff residing in Canada. In light of the successful bid value of KRW 1,000,000,000 and KRW 45/500 of the sale price of this case's real estate of this case's real estate of this case's investment.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.