early 2010 Heavy032 ( November 24, 2010)

Since the successful bid price by compulsory auction is the transfer value, the disposition imposed on this basis is legitimate.

Since the successful bid price by the compulsory auction is the transfer value, the disposition imposed on this basis is legitimate, and the compulsory auction which becomes the means to transfer the ownership of the land is made by false bonds, but it is insufficient to recognize it, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2011Revocation of disposition of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

XX

Head of the High Tax Office

August 23, 2011

September 27, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 126,302,017 on December 7, 2010, exceeding KRW 38,274,854, which was imposed by the Plaintiff on December 7, 2010, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 30, 2006, the compulsory sale of ownership transfer, etc. was completed on May 30, 2006 with respect to the land of the same Ri 00-0 m240 m2, the same Ri 00-0 m240 m2, the same Ri 00 m23 m23 m2, the same Ri 00 m23 m23 m23 m2, which was owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On the other hand, on June 29, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred 37,000,000 square meters of buildings 198 square meters of the above Ri 00-0 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) to thisA, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of thisA.

C. On September 23, 2009, the Defendant imposed global income tax of KRW 153,192,050 on the Plaintiff with the transfer value of the instant land at KRW 430,00,000, and the transfer value of the instant building at KRW 37,00,000. The acquisition value of the instant land and building at KRW 44,020,010 was imposed on the Plaintiff.

D. On December 22, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed against the above disposition and filed a tax appeal, and the Defendant on December 22, 2010.

12. 7. Upon the decision of the Tax Tribunal, the Plaintiff issued the notice of correction to KRW 126,302,017 with the acquisition value as KRW 117,489,251.

E. On February 28, 2011, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the instant disposition. On May 23, 2011, the instant lawsuit was pending, the Defendant revised and revoked the imposition of capital gains tax on the instant building, and corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the total income tax accrued in 2006 KRW 123,185,330 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 1 to 5 evidence (including each number, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff’s transfer income tax on the instant building constitutes a case where taxation cannot be imposed, and thus, the disposition of imposition of transfer income tax on the instant building is unlawful.

2) On August 23, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with thisA to sell the instant land in KRW 210,000,000. Since it did not obtain a land transaction permit with respect to the said land, the Plaintiff made thisA to obtain a successful bid for KRW 430,000 of the instant land by using a compulsory auction procedure to complete a registration of ownership transfer under the name of thisA. Accordingly, the transfer price of the instant land ought to be calculated as KRW 210,000,000, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) As seen earlier, the Defendant’s revocation of imposition of capital gains tax on the instant building on May 23, 2011 is identical to that of the Plaintiff. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit (this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is nonexistent, and thus, is dismissed on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s claim in this case is groundless as it is deemed that no disposition exists, or that there is no interest in litigation, or that the claim

2) In full view of the respective descriptions and arguments of the evidence Nos. 3 and 6 and the purport of the whole arguments, thisA shall be deemed to have been made on May 30, 2006.

The fact that the instant land was knocked at KRW 430,00,000, and thisA sold the instant land and buildings to O Food Co., Ltd. on June 29, 200, and then stated the acquisition value of the instant land as KRW 430,000,000, and filed a capital gains tax report. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant disposition that calculated the transfer value of the instant land at KRW 430,00,000 is lawful, barring any special circumstances.

The plaintiff, August 23, 200, entered into a contract with thisA to sell the land of this case at KRW 210,000,00,000 on August 23, 200, but the plaintiff used the means of compulsory auction to transfer ownership, so the transfer value shall be calculated at KRW 210,00,000. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff and thisA obtained land transaction permission regarding the land of this case within the land transaction permission area, the sales contract that the plaintiff and thisA entered into on August 23, 204 is invalid. Accordingly, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

On the other hand, the plaintiff alleged that the compulsory auction, which is the means to transfer the ownership of the land of this case, was conducted by the fraudulent claim of leB. Therefore, the above auction is null and void, and therefore, the transfer registration of ownership transfer, which has been made in the name of AA due to compulsory auction on the land of this case, should be cancelled as the cause invalidation. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no reason to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.