National High Court Decision 2007Da2908 ( October 28, 2008)

Appropriateness of the assertion that transfer margin of the right of sale has been mistakenly calculated.

In the case of acquisition value, taxation is legitimate by considering that the Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation at the time of investigation, that the acquisition value was not disputed in the pre-trial procedure, and that the purchaser stated accurately the down payment, intermediate payment, and balance in the court in the case of transfer value.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 68,241,020 (including additional tax of KRW 22,477,820) against the Plaintiff on January 4, 2007 that exceeds KRW 43,92,111 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances concerning the imposition and disposition of the instant case;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or recognized in accordance with the purport of each description of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8-1, 2, 13, and 9-1, 2, and 9-2, and the whole pleadings.

A. On March 18, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased the right to sell the land of 313-2 site 1,259.4 square meters from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, 313-2 site, and sold it again to ○○○○○○○ on March 2, 2002.

B. Around June 2002, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income tax for the year 2002 with the Defendant on the basis of the acquisition value of the instant sales right of KRW 120 million and the transfer value at KRW 130 million, respectively.

C. After examining the actual transaction value of the right to sell the instant land, the director of Busan Regional Tax Office: (a) deemed the transfer value of the instant right to sell the land as KRW 317.12 million; and (b) notified the Defendant of the acquisition value as KRW 180 million; and (c) on January 4, 2007, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 68,241,020 for the transfer income tax of 202, based on the value notified to the Plaintiff on January 4, 2007.

D. On July 24, 2007, the Plaintiff appealed to the National Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on February 28, 2008.

E. On February 16, 2009, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, the transfer value of the instant sales right was KRW 38 million, and the decision of ex officio to reduce the tax amount of KRW 4,037,690 in the initial disposition was made, and on March 18, 2009, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the amount of KRW 4,037,690 in total and KRW 378,570 in total and KRW 4,416,260 in total and KRW 378,570 in total and KRW 378,570 in total (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The value of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the right to sell the instant land from New Seat is KRW 19,7120,000,000,000 for the value that the Plaintiff transferred to Lee ○-ok. Thus, the instant disposition that calculated the amount of the transfer income tax on a different basis is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to Articles 96(1) and 100 of the Income Tax Act, the sales right of this case is a right to acquire real estate, and the acquisition value and transfer value shall be based on the actual transaction value in calculating the transfer margin of this case.

(2) First of all, the following facts are acknowledged by the Plaintiff’s acquisition value of the instant right from New ○○○, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1, 4, 7, 8, 5-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 6-1, 2, and Eul evidence 7-1, 7-1, 7-2, and the entire pleadings: ① on November 27, 2006, the Plaintiff submitted to Busan Regional Tax Office a letter of confirmation that the acquisition value of the instant right of sale was KRW 180 million; ② on March 18, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased the instant right of sale from New ○○○○○○, KRW 1,000,000,000,000 won, and ③ on March 18, 2002, the transfer value of the instant right of sale was KRW 1,000,000,000,000,000 won.

(3) 다음으로, 원고가 이○옥에게 이 사건 분양권을 양도한 가액에 관하여 살피건대, 갑1호증의 1, 2, 을2호증의 10, 을3호증의 4, 을5호증의 1, 2, 3의 각 기재와 증인 이○옥의 증인 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 이 사건 분양권을 양수한 이○옥이 이 법원에 이 사건 소송의 중인으로 출석하여, 원고에 게 이 사건 분양권의 매수대금조로 2002. 3. 21. 계약금 8,100만 원을, 2002. 4.1 12. 중도금 1억 원을, 2002. 5. 12. 잔금 1억 2,700만 원을 각 지급하여 합계 3억 800만 원을 지급하였다고 증언하고 있는 점, ② 실제로 원고는 2002. 4. 12 이○옥에게 아 사건 분양권의 중도금조로 1억 원울 지급받았다는 취지의 영수증(을2호증의 10)을 작성하여 건네준 점,® 원고는 이○옥으로부터 2002. 3. 21. 계약금조로 8,300만 원, 20012. 4. 1. 중도금조로 3,000만 원, 2002. 4. 12. 잔금조로 1억 원을 각 지급받았으므로 양도가액 은 2억 1,300만 원이라고 주장하면서도, 이러한 주장과 달려 위 ②항에서 본바와 같이 원고가 2002. 4. 12. 이○옥으로부터 중도금조로 1억 원을 받았다는 취지의1 영수증 (을2호증의 10)에 대하여는 납득할만한 설명을 못하고 있는 점, ④ 더구나, 원고는 이 사건 분양권의 양도가액에 대하여 예정신고시에는 1억 3,000만 원 이 사건 부과처분에 대한 이의신청 및 국세심판원에의 심판청구 시에는 2억 1,300만 원이라고 작 주장 하다가, 이 사건 소송에 이르러 비로소 2억 9,712만 5,000원이라고 주장하고 있는 점, ⑤ 이 사건 분양권에 대하여 2002. 5. 27. 이○옥 앞으로 권리 승계가 이루어진 점에 비추어, 원고가 주장하는 바와 같이 2002. 4. 12. 잔금 지급이 이루어졌다기 보다는 증 인 이○옥의 증언대로 위 권리승계열에 가까운 2002. 5. 12. 잔금 지급이 이루어졌다고 보는 것이 거래실정에 더 부합하는 점 등을 종합해보면, 원고가 이○옥에게 이 사건 분양권을 양도한 가액은 3억 800만 원이라고 봄이 상당하다.

(4) Therefore, the instant disposition that calculated the transfer income tax amount by deeming the acquisition value of the instant sales right as KRW 180 million and the transfer value as KRW 380 million is lawful. The Plaintiff’s assertion disputing this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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