The actual transaction price is the value objectively recognized by the sales contract or other documentary evidence for the payment itself or at the time of the transaction.

The actual transaction price is the value objectively recognized by the sales contract or other documentary evidence for the payment itself or at the time of the transaction.

Article 94 of the Income Tax Act

Suwon District Court 2013Gudan4365

500

00. Head of tax office

January 8, 2014

February 5, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 12,090,610 on January 8, 2011 by the defendant of the Gu office against the plaintiff on January 8, 2013 shall be revoked.

A. On November 23, 201, the Plaintiff transferred the instant building Nos. 00,000,000 - 00 - 00 - 405 - 405 - - 102 - (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) to the jh (hereinafter referred to as the “jhh) Association, which was acquired on February 6, 2001, and did not report and pay the transfer income tax in relation to the transfer of the instant building.

B. The Defendant considered 80,000,000 won as the actual transaction value for the transfer of the instant building as stated in the register of real estate register on the instant building. On January 8, 2013, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 12,090,610 as the transfer income tax for the year 2011 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on June 21, 2013 upon filing an objection against the instant disposition. However, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for review on September 11, 2013. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, Gap’s evidence No. 2, Eul’s evidence No. 1, and Eul’s evidence No. 2

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff did not sell the instant building in KRW 80,00,000 to the j school, the Defendant, on a different premise, issued the instant disposition, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition against the Plaintiff was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) In calculating gains from transfer, which is the tax base of capital gains tax, the actual transaction value refers to the actual agreed price for the payment itself or at the time of the transaction, which is the value objectively recognized by the sales contract or other evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19465, Feb. 10, 201). 2) In light of the above legal principles, it is recognized that the Plaintiff sold the building of this case to the Suwon District Court for KRW 80,000,000, in full view of the following circumstances that can show the results of the commission of document delivery to the Suwon District Court 00,000, as well as the purport of the entire pleadings.

① Under the premise that a sales contract was concluded with respect to the transfer of the instant building, the Plaintiff and the local council reported the real estate transaction of KRW 80,00,000 on the actual transaction price pursuant to Article 27 of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act and Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act, to the head of Suwon-si having jurisdiction over the location of the instant building.

② As a result, it is stated that the Plaintiff sold the instant building in KRW 80,000,00 in the real estate transaction contract completion certificate and the real estate registration register with respect to the instant building.

③ The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 1-2, and 3 are insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's above assertion that the plaintiff donated the building of this case to the jridge, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.