Seoul Administrative Court 201Gudan31577 ( October 19, 2012)

The plaintiff cannot recognize the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition on the basis of only the confirmation document of the former owner.

Considering that the former owner is not a third party who can take an objective position on the sales contract of the land of this case, it is difficult to view the credibility to the extent that it is difficult to readily deny the value of the evidence, and therefore, it is difficult to recognize the actual transaction price at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act other

2012Nu34527 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Gudan31577 decided October 19, 2012

June 26, 2013

July 17, 2013

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

“3. The purport of the judgment of the first instance is to rectify the Defendant’s purport of the claim to the effect that the disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2001, which belongs to the Plaintiff on March 2, 201, is revoked”, purport of the claim and appeal.

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of the capital gains tax of 2001 on the Plaintiff on March 2, 201 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court’s judgment is as follows: (a) adding a judgment on the Defendant’s assertion is identical to that of the first instance court; and (b) thus, (c) pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional determination

The defendant asserts that the transaction price stated in the confirmation document (No. 2) prepared by HanB should be viewed as the actual transaction price at the time of the plaintiff's acquisition.

On the other hand, among the contents written in the above confirmation document, the location and size of the real estate, the date of transfer of ownership on the register, and the date of actual liquidation of remaining balance (the date of provisional registration) are identical to those written in the real estate registration book, and the transaction price of the land in this case can only be known to the fact that it is an OO won. The above confirmation document only states that the real estate sales contract is lost and the specific contents of the contract, such as the date of receipt of the down payment and the amount of the intermediate payment, cannot be known, and that the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial witness of the first instance trial merely disregards the contents of the contract, there is no other document to support the authenticity of the transaction price. ② The above confirmation document was prepared in the process of undergoing a tax investigation on the actual transaction price by selling various lands from the tax authorities after about three years and six months from the time of selling the land in this case, and ③B is not able to take an objective position on the sales contract in this case, and thus, it cannot be easily acknowledged that the plaintiff's credibility at the above confirmation document is not acceptable.

We cannot accept the argument.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The defendant's appeal is dismissed. Since the purport of the judgment of the first instance is obvious that it is a clerical error, it shall be corrected.