Since the actual acquisition price is recognized, the disposition to apply the conversion price is illegal.

Since it is confirmed that the testimony of the pre-owner of the instant land was reliable and the transaction price was set out in the account transaction statement, etc., it is recognized that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land at the price claimed by the Plaintiff, the disposition imposing capital gains tax by applying the conversion price is unlawful, deeming that the actual transaction price

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses of Capital Gains)

Determination and correction of Article 176-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

2011Gudan3824 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX Kim

The Director of Gangnam District Office

September 7, 2011

October 5, 2011

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 28.82.210 on the Plaintiff on July 1, 2010 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 11, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired respectively 2,251 square meters of 000 forest land per annum, “2,251 square meters per annum, 2000 m2,251 m2,251 square meters per annum, i.e., 000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,302 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 from m2

B. On April 24, 2008, the Plaintiff did not report the transfer income tax after transferring the said five parcels of land (hereinafter “each parcel of land of this case”). On July 1, 2010, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing KRW 28,822,210,00, which was calculated by adding the transfer value of each parcel of land of this case to the Plaintiff as KRW 84.5 million, and the acquisition value to the Plaintiff as KRW 43,923,585, which was converted value.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3 (including virtual number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 4, and 7

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased 73,500,000 forest and 000 forest and 84,500,000 forest and 84,500,000 won from Hapopo-si among each of the instant lands. The Plaintiff purchased the remaining lands from the UCC. However, there was no transfer margin by transferring each of the instant lands to 84,50,000 won, and thus, the instant disposition otherwise reported is unlawful.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff failed to present a contract proving the acquisition value. On September 17, 2002, the Plaintiff’s account was withdrawn with KRW 84 million and KRW 73.5 million from the Plaintiff’s account on September 17, 2002, and there is no evidence to deem that the said money was paid to A and UCC. The sales contract submitted by the UCC upon filing a transfer income tax report on September 13, 2002 was entered in the transfer income tax amount as KRW 32 million, and thus, the acquisition value claimed by the Plaintiff cannot be acknowledged as real acquisition value. Thus, the instant disposition that applied the conversion value to the acquisition value is legitimate.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, the facts acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 6, each of the testimony of the witness ChoiB and the UCC, the Plaintiff purchased 73,500 forest land of the instant land at the amount of KRW 73,50,000 from Chopo-si and the same Ri 000 forest land, and purchased 84,000,000 won from the UCC.

First, the UCC sold the land of three parcels of land in this case, which it had owned, to the Plaintiff in the court, and sold the forest to KRW 35,00,00 per square meter (3.305 m2) and KRW 84,000 per square meter (3.305 m2) and per square meter (35,000 m2,000 won per square meter). Since the area of the land in the ChoA and the largest BB was smaller than its own land, the transfer price was less than its own price. In light of the fact that the UCC first became aware of the said land transaction with the Plaintiff, and that there was no special motive to make a false statement for the Plaintiff, such as in the absence of any contact thereafter, the above testimony is deemed reliable.

Second, when based on the Plaintiff’s account transaction statement, the amount of KRW 84 million was deposited from the account to the Plaintiff’s account on September 17, 2002, and KRW 73.5 million was deposited from the account. On September 30, 200, it was recognized that the amount of KRW 100 million was deposited into the Plaintiff’s account on September 30, 200, and when based on the testimony of least BB and UCC, the amount of KRW 100 million was deposited to the Plaintiff in order to pay interest on the purchase price of the land that the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff, and after ChoA used the money to the largest B and UCC, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff and U.S., and the amount was used as the hospital expenses of the Mediation. This is consistent with the Plaintiff’s specification of transactions in the said account.

Therefore, the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax by applying the conversion price under the premise that the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition of each of the instant land is not verifiable is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.