Whether it is possible to request correction based on the standard market price of the goods scheduled on the actual transaction price.

It is difficult to view that the legislative purpose of the provision that can be reported as the actual transaction value without being based on the standard market price is limited to cases where the taxation based on the actual transaction value is more favorable to the taxpayer than the taxation based on the standard market price, or limited

Article 94 (Scope of Transfer Income Tax of the Gu)

Article 96 (Value of Transfer)

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 KRW 162,58,680 on January 2, 2008 against the Plaintiff on January 2, 2008 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 12, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired a new factory building on the land of ○○○○○○○, ○○○○-1, ○○○-2, ○○○-3, ○○-4, 2817 square meters in total, and 560,000 square meters in total, and above ○○○-5, and 12,072,70 won in construction cost, and thereafter newly constructed a new factory building on the land of ○○○○○○-1, ○○-3, and ○○-5, and completed on July 12, 2002. After that, on December 20, 2003, the Plaintiff additionally acquired the above ○○○-12,304 square meters in total,000,000 won in total, from this solar on December 20, 2003.

B. On April 16, 2004, the Plaintiff transferred the above seven parcels of land and the entire building on its ground (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant real estate”) to 1,180,000,000 won, and on July 30, 2004, entered the acquisition value of the Defendant in KRW 407,072,700, and the transfer value in KRW 530,000,000, and made a preliminary return of capital gains tax on the basis of the actual transaction value, and voluntarily paid capital gains tax of KRW 19,482,840 as capital gains tax.

C. From October 18, 2007 to October 26, 2007, the Defendant conducted a field investigation and confirmed the fact that the acquisition value of the instant real estate was KRW 640,072,70 (= KRW 560,000 + KRW 12,072,700 + KRW 68,000 + KRW 68,000), and the transfer value was KRW 1,180,000,000. On January 2, 2008, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing additional KRW 162,58,680 to the Plaintiff for the transfer income tax for the year 2004.

D. On January 30, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on January 30, 2007, but was dismissed on March 6, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-6, Eul evidence 7-1 through 5, Eul evidence 8-1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff was able to report the value of the instant real estate according to the standard market price at the time of filing the instant preliminary return, and if so, there was no need to pay capital gains tax at all. Nevertheless, there was a wind problem that a certified tax accountant who vicariously reported the instant real estate based on both the acquisition value and the transfer value based on the actual transaction price, not on the standard market price.

(2) In light of the purport of the proviso of Article 96(1)6 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837, Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same) and the proviso of Article 114(4) of the same Act, it is subject to only the tax amount reported based on the actual transaction value is less than the standard market price. If the amount reported based on the actual transaction value is larger than the standard market price, the purpose of tax avoidance cannot be recognized and thus, the above provision shall not be applied.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax on the basis of the actual transaction price is unlawful without providing the Plaintiff with an opportunity to file a revised return so that it can be based on the standard market price again before the expiration of the time limit for determining the Plaintiff.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 94 (Scope of Transfer Income Tax of the Gu)

Article 96 (Value of Transfer)

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

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

C. Determination

(1) Article 96(1)6 of the former Income Tax Act provides that, as an exception to the principle of taxation on the standard market price, where a transferor may impose tax based on the actual transaction price, the transferor files a return on the actual transaction price at the time of transfer and at the time of acquisition to the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment by the deadline for filing a final return under Article 110(1) of the same Act along with evidential documents. Even if considering the legislative purpose of the above provision and the principle of substantial taxation comprehensively, it is difficult to view that the above provision is limited

(2) Furthermore, in a case where a resident files a preliminary return or a final return on capital gains tax base under Article 96(1)6 of the former Income Tax Act, and where the reported value is different from the fact, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment explicitly states that the tax base and the amount of capital gains tax shall be revised by making the “the verified value immediately as transfer value or acquisition value” as transfer value or acquisition value. As such, if the taxpayer files a preliminary return on the actual transaction price different from the fact as the Plaintiff’s assertion, but the amount is higher than the standard market price, the tax office shall not be deemed to have the duty to pay

(3) The instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.