Changwon District Court 2012Guhap2915 ( December 13, 2012)

Appellate Court 2012 Deputy 1587 ( May 24, 2012)

When it is recognized that the approval seal contract is written differently from the actual sale amount, the presumption power is reversed.

The approval seal contract is presumed to be the actual contract, but the approval seal contract is deemed to be written differently from the actual purchase price, and if the actual acquisition price is confirmed, the transfer income tax should be imposed according to the actual transaction price.

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses in Transfer Income Tax)

Article 114 (Determination, Revision and Notification of Tax Base for Transfer Income and Amount of Tax)

(C)The revocation of the disposition imposing capital gains tax;

Song AA

○ Head of tax office

Changwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap2915 Decided December 13, 2012

September 26, 2013

November 7, 2013

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On November 1, 2011, the Defendant’s disposition of imposition by the OOOO of capital gains tax for the year 201 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 15, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired OBO 248-10 square meters, 320.3 square meters, and two-story detached houses and neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant real estate”), and transferred the instant real estate to SouthCC on February 10, 201. On March 25, 201, the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer value of the instant real estate to the Defendant as OOO and acquisition value as OOO. The Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer value to the Defendant on March 25, 201.

B. On November 1, 2011, the Defendant denied the acquisition value reported by the Plaintiff, and deemed the acquisition value of the instant real estate as an OOO, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the OOOO of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2011 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 26, 2012, but was dismissed on May 24, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 9-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In fact, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from B from OB to OO, not from OOO, and the remaining OOOO paid to B and paid in lieu of payment due to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of obligations to the agricultural cooperatives of B. As such, the instant disposition was unlawful as it violates the principle of substantial taxation.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Determination

Unless there are special circumstances, the seal of approval issued by the parties to a transaction and affixed with the seal of approval of the head of a Si/Gun, etc. shall be presumed to have been prepared in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, and the assertion that the contract was prepared differently from the actual ones shall be proved (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2353, Apr. 9,

According to Gap evidence 3, the plaintiff's disposal of the real estate of this case is recognized as the fact that the plaintiff prepared an approval seal to purchase the real estate of this case from Eul. However, considering Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 4-1, 2, and 3 as a result of the appraisal of the market price of this case, the plaintiff's disposal of the real estate of this case 1-2, 2, and 1-2, 3-2, and 5-2, 1-2, 2000, 3-2, 1-2, 2000, 1-2, 2000, 2000, 3-1-2, 2000, 2000, 1-2,000,000,000 won, 3-1,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and 1-2,000,000,000.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair, so it is revoked, and the defendant decided to revoke the disposition of this case against the plaintiff on November 1, 201, and it is so decided as per Disposition.