Review Transfer 2008-0150 (Law No. 97, 2008)

Where the authenticity of a contract is doubtful, the acquisition value shall be calculated as the standard market price.

The credibility of the contract is doubtful because it is argued that the contract price is the actual work price when presenting the contract document, but there is no statement in the contract document, it is difficult for the contractor to refuse the request of the plaintiff, and it is not clearly stated in the court about the payment of the contract price.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 96 (Transfer Price)

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income Tax)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of 201,940,739 (the amended purport of the claim is stated as KRW 215,071,181, but appears to have been erroneous in the amount of KRW 201,940,739) on February 4, 2008, which exceeds KRW 87,984,047,047, among the disposition of 201,940,739 for the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

가. 원고는 서울 용산구 ★★동 9-7 소재 토지와 건물(이하 '이 사건 토지 및 건물' 이라 한다)과 같은 동 9-3 토지와 건물(이하, 이 사건 '쟁점 외 토지 및 건물'이라 한다) 을 2003. 6. 30. 법원 경매를 통하여 제3자에게 양도하고 실지거래가액에 의하여 이 사건 및 쟁점 외 토지와 건물들의 양도가액을 1,184,500,000원, 취득가액을 1,034,000,000원으로 계산하여 양도소득세 13,130,442원을 신고ㆍ납부하였다.

B. As a result of the investigation of the transfer income tax for the taxable year of 2003 against the Plaintiff, the Defendant re-calculated the acquisition value of the instant land and buildings other than the instant issues at the conversion price based on the standard market price on the ground that the Plaintiff was unable to trust the acquisition value reported, and re-calculated the acquisition value of the instant land at KRW 109,56,566,335, and the acquisition value of the instant land at KRW 204,142,951, total acquisition value of the instant building at KRW 534,787,102, and then issued a disposition to additionally impose and notify the Plaintiff of KRW 202,672,760 on February 4, 2008.

C. Since then, in light of the provisions of Article 176-2(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, on the ground that the acquisition value of the building of this case, acquired after January 1, 1985, cannot be calculated as the conversion value of the building of this case, which was acquired after January 1, 1985, there was a review of the purport that both the transfer value and acquisition value of the building of this case should be calculated as the standard market price and the tax base and tax amount should be corrected. Accordingly, the defendant imposed a reduction of the total transfer income tax of 217,096,00, and the acquisition value of 191,871,312, calculated as the standard market price all the acquisition value and transfer value of the building of this case and other issues of this case, and the total acquisition value of the building of this case and other buildings of this case shall be 522,615,463, and the total acquisition value of the building of this case shall be 1,170,735,371, and 2074.7.7.

[Basis] Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1-4, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 6-1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the disposition is proper; and

A. The plaintiff's principal

Since the Plaintiff newly constructed the instant building on the basis of giving the construction cost of KRW 420,00,00,000 on or around July 1993, the acquisition value of the instant building should be KRW 420,000,000, which is the amount equivalent to the said construction cost. Therefore, the acquisition value of the instant building should be calculated on the basis of the actual transaction value of KRW 420,000,000, which is the actual transaction value of the instant building. In such a case, the total transfer value of the instant building and the instant other land and buildings shall be KRW 1,184,50,500, and the total transfer value of the instant building and other buildings shall be KRW 750,64,151, and the transfer income tax amount to be additionally paid shall be calculated on the basis of KRW 87,984,047,00,000. Therefore, the part in excess of

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In the case that the plaintiff reports the actual transaction price as at the time of transfer and acquisition along with the documents as at the time of the above recognition, the transfer income tax shall be calculated according to Articles 96 (1) 6 and 100 (1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the transfer income tax shall be calculated based on the actual transfer price and acquisition price if the actual transaction price is recognized by the documentary evidence. In addition, if there is no book, sales contract, receipt, or other documentary evidence necessary to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition, or if there is no book, sales contract, receipt, or other documentary evidence necessary to confirm the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition or any important part thereof is finished, the acquisition price shall be determined by investigating in the order of transaction examples, appraisal price, conversion price, and standard market price in accordance with Article 176-2 (3) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

Based on the above legal principles, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased the building in this case to Kim-won on or around July 1993 under the condition that construction cost of KRW 420,00,000, and constructed the building in this case; (b) on July 30, 1993, under the construction contract with Kim-won in the name of Kim-won (No. 2); (c) seven copies of receipt in the name of Kim-won (No. 6-1 and 7); and (d) the statement of Kim-won, Kim-won, and the statement of Kim-young (No. 3 and 4-1 and 2-1 of the evidence No. 3); (c) on the other hand, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the construction contract in this case to the Plaintiff; and (d) in light of the following facts, it is doubtful that the Plaintiff did not have any other evidence to recognize the credibility of the construction contract in this case, including the fact that the Plaintiff did not have any other evidence of the construction contract in this case, including the completion of the construction contract in this case.

Therefore, the Defendant’s acquisition value of the instant land is reasonable as the standard market price on the ground that there is no book, sales contract, receipt, or other documentary evidence necessary to confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of the instant land, or that there is no material part thereof, and that the instant disposition is legitimate, provided that the transfer value and the standard market price are reasonable in accordance with Article 114(5) of the Income Tax Act and Article 176-2(3)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act as a result of the survey by estimation in the order of transaction example, appraisal value, conversion value, and standard market price, and that there is no transaction example and appraisal value of the instant land.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the disposition of this case is legitimate and dismissed as the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is without merit.