Suwon District Court 2008Guhap1182 ( October 21, 2009)

National High Court Decision 2007J 4098 (208.02)

Actual transaction price of land and housing;

Although the transfer value reported is the value based on the actual contract, it is judged that the contract confirmed by the tax authority is the true contract in view of the special contract terms and conditions, etc.

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

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on August 6, 2007 by KRW 924,614,00, and KRW 460,916,880, respectively, for the transfer income tax of 2003 reverted to the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are reasonable, and thus, are cited as the reasons for this judgment in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act: Provided, That part of the judgment of the court of first instance has

- 1,125,050,000 won for the first place, "1,236,00,000" for the first place,

- - The 6th “A industry of a stock company” is “B industry of a stock company”.

- - The "total of 120,000,000 won" to be the "total of 1,200,000 won" to be the 6th 18th 18th ;

2. The plaintiff filed a preliminary return of the tax base of capital gains on each of the instant lands and houses, and filed a return of the transfer value as the actual transaction value pursuant to the normal sales contract, but the defendant did not prove the fact that the transfer value reported by the plaintiff is different from the actual transaction value, and thus, asserts that the disposition of this case was unlawful.

In general, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements in a lawsuit seeking revocation of taxation shall be imposed on the tax authority, but if the facts alleged in the facts in light of the empirical rule are revealed in the course of a specific lawsuit, it cannot be readily concluded that the other party is an unlawful disposition that failed to meet the taxation requirements, unless the other party proves that the pertinent facts in question were not eligible for application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du13831, May 29, 2008).

Although the Defendant did not present an actual sales contract for the land of this case, it is found that the D General Construction and thisCC deposited into deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name from July 6, 2002 to August 16, 2002, which was the time when the sales contract for the said land was concluded, or paid in total KRW 4,812,084,535, which was the time when the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the said land. The other sales contract for the two land of this case and land of this case was submitted during the pleadings, and the details of financial transactions consistent with the entries in each of the above sales contract were revealed. Nevertheless, in light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed an unlawful disposition that did not submit any materials to oppose the above details of financial transactions, and thus, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case is justified in the grounds for appeal that the Plaintiff determined the amount of transfer amount based on the fact that the transfer value was different from the Plaintiff’s transfer value, and thus, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.