Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap3232

early 2012west 2306

Within three months from the date of the donation of apartment houses held by the Defendant at the market price, transaction example is legitimate, and the lease deposit, etc. is not judged as a debt.

A gift tax disposition is legitimate and judged as the market price, and it is also the sale of apartment buildings that are identical or similar to the apartment of this case and the size, location, use, and item, and the sale price is also considered as a normal transaction amount reflecting objective exchange values, and the lease deposit, etc. is not determined as a debt

2013Nu6116 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

NewA

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap3232 decided January 25, 2013

July 24, 2013

September 4, 2013

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. The defendant shall revoke the disposition imposing OOO on the plaintiff on February 1, 2012.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) therefore, (c) pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Even if the Plaintiff received the gift of the instant apartment, deeming the market price of the instant apartment as an OOOE is unlawful. Moreover, in the instant apartment market, the OOOE and the OOEEN should be deducted from the market price of the instant apartment. A public official affiliated with the Defendant agreed to deduct the OOE transferred by the Plaintiff to AB via the account from the market price. The failure to deduct the said amount at the time of the instant disposition is in violation of the principle of good faith.

B. Determination on the market price argument

1) First, we examine the assertion that the apartment market price of this case is not an OO member.

Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the value of the property on which the gift tax is levied shall be the market price as of the date of donation. Article 60(2) provides that the market price under the provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Act shall be the value which is generally accepted if a transaction is made freely between many and unspecified persons, and shall include the value which is recognized as the market price under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as the acceptance price and the appraisal price. Article 49(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act delegated to it provides that Article 60(2) of the same Act shall apply to the case where the sale, appraisal, expropriation, auction or public sale is made within six months before or after the base date of appraisal (three months in the case of donated property; hereafter in this paragraph, the assessment period shall be three months), and Article 49(5) provides that in the application of the provisions of paragraph (1), the value of the property concerned, its size, location and use, and other items that are identical or similar to each subparagraph of the same paragraph.

2) The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 13, 19, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6.

① The apartment area of this case is 84.78 square meters. Of CCC apartment units belonging to the apartment complex of this case, the size of which is 84.78 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “non-intersection apartment units”) on November 208, 2008 notice of the National Bank is given to the OOO members, and the average price is OO members.” ② The transaction price (No. 5) between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport for comparative apartment units is 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000).

The apartment price announced by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport as of January 1, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "multi-family housing price") is 0.00 won, 1 and 8 apartment units as of January 1, 2008 are 0.00 won, 6 and 7 apartment units as of January 1, 2008 . 3, 1000 1 and 208 0.08 1 and 208 0.00 1 and 206 0.0 1 and 206 0.00 7.00, 208 1 and 108 0.00 00 , 1 and 206 00 , 200 , 1 and 800 , 200 , 200 , 205 , and 10.08 , 200 ,200 ,205 .00 .

④ Of the compared apartment transaction prices in 2008, the cases where the defendant was lower than that stipulated at the market price are OOOOOwon No. 106, 404, 106, 26107, 105, 426, 103, 106, 5106, 102, 5102, 62107, 1401, 62107, 1401, 26, 42, 51 of the above apartment. However, when examining the apartment house prices as of January 1, 2008 of the above apartment, OOOOO, 62 of apartment houses are those, OOO, 62 of apartment houses are those, excluding OO, 62 of apartment houses are, or are, lower than the number of floors.

3) As seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that there existed the instant apartment purchase and sale between the Plaintiff and AB. As such, the Plaintiff and AB erred in the market price of the purchase and sale price stated in the real estate sales contract (Evidence A No. 1) dated November 24, 2008 between the Plaintiff and AB. However, as seen earlier, the sales price of apartment buildings within the same complex as the instant apartment complex, which is similar to the size of the apartment complex, is at least OB, and the sales price of apartment buildings within three months near November 24, 2008, which is equal to that of the instant apartment complex, is at least KRW 106, 1103, which is the close to the date of the instant apartment donation, is the same as the sales price of apartment houses, and the sale price of apartment houses exceeds OOOwon as the normal purchase and sale price of apartment buildings, which is less than the average trading price of 108,000,000 won, which is less than the average trading price of the instant apartment house.

Therefore, as the Defendant additionally claims, the OOOO members calculated at the market price of the apartment house of this case can be deemed to be within the market price under Article 60(1) and (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 49(1) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (the calculation was made more favorable to the Plaintiff). The disposition of this case is lawful (as seen earlier, the market price of the apartment of this case seems to be at least OO members even if the sale price within 3 months, not the transaction, is the market price, not the

C. Determination on the remainder of the argument

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,00,000 to the instant apartment, and in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 13, it is recognized that the name of the obligor of the right to collateral security established on the instant apartment was not changed from the insideB to the name of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the obligation to collateral security and the right to collateral security should be deducted from the market price of the instant apartment is not acceptable.

In addition, there is no evidence to deem that a public official belonging to the Defendant, who transferred the instant disposition to AB via the account, had the Plaintiff deducted the OOO from the market price. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition violated the principle of good faith is difficult to accept.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.