Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan22617 (2013.08)

(As with the judgment of the first instance), it is difficult to deem that the price of the land and building entered in the division of the sales contract is unreasonable.

Since the value of land and buildings is clearly clearly divided under the sales contract, it is difficult to readily conclude that the value classification is not reasonable in light of the trend of decline in the standard market price of buildings without any proof that such division is not genuine agreement between parties to a transaction or intent to evade tax, and thus, it is unlawful to divide the value of land and buildings by deeming that the classification is unclear.

Article 100 of the Income Tax Act

2013Nu16182 Revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

Park AA

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan22617 decided May 8, 2013

December 24, 2013

January 24, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of the capital gains tax of 2009 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2012 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as stated in Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, because it is the same as the stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part concerning dismissal, addition, and deletion as stated in the following paragraph (2). Therefore, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Parts that are removed or added and deleted;

In addition, the 4th to 10th to 4th to 7th to 10th to the decision of the first instance court are as follows.

(2) The individual housing price of the instant housing (including annexed land) publicly notified immediately before the date of the instant sales contract is an OOO won, and the standard market price of the instant neighborhood living facilities (including annexed land) is OOOO won (the Defendant calculated the sales price of the instant land in proportion to the transfer price based on the individual housing price and the standard market price, and according to the Defendant’s calculation, the total transfer price of the instant building portion is approximately KRW 00. Meanwhile, the standard market price of the instant building in 2009 is OO won, and the standard market price of the instant land in 2009 is OO won.

In addition, the 4th sentence of the first instance court is as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 8, Eul's Evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

In Part 5, the following shall be added to the 6th decision of the first instance.

In calculating capital gains, the tax authorities should sufficiently assert and prove the unclear reasons, such as the denial of the transaction price of each real estate divided into land and buildings within the scope of the actual transaction price, while recognizing that the total purchase price stated in the sales contract, which is ordinarily based on which the tax authorities impose tax, is the basis for the calculation of capital gains (see Supreme Court Decision 80Nu429, Nov. 11, 1980).

In the 6th judgment of the first instance court, the decline in the standard market price of the building of this case in the 9th judgment is deleted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case can be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified on the grounds of its conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition