The acquisition value cannot be recognized as the actual transaction price only with the result of a sales contract and a document appraisal in the year 1987 submitted by the plaintiff.

The purchase price under a sales contract is higher than the market price, and there is no financial transaction information on the fact that the purchase price was paid, so the actual transaction price cannot be recognized as the acquisition price.

2016Gudan7808 Disposition of Revocation of Capital Gains Tax Imposition

○ ○

port of origin

March 31, 2017

April 7, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 1,943,587,030 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on October 1, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(1) On May 11, 1984, the Plaintiff acquired 51-54 and 47,49 forest land at Jeju (hereinafter the aforementioned 47 forest land and 49 forest land collectively referred to as "land subject to dispute ①") and 63 land at Jeju (hereinafter referred to as "land subject to dispute ②") respectively. On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff sold the said 7 land to AAAAA Co., Ltd. at KRW 17.6 billion. On July 31, 2014, the issues as indicated below were as follows: (i) the transfer value and acquisition value of the land are both the actual transaction value; (ii) the remaining land is the conversion value; and (iii) the transfer value is the actual transaction value; and (iv) the transfer value is the actual transaction value, and paid KRW 4,474,222,980 at that time.

B. From February 11, 2015 to June 13, 2015, the Defendant: (a) conducted a field investigation on capital gains tax; (b) decided and notified the increase in capital gains tax of KRW 1,943,587,030 (including additional tax) to the Plaintiff on October 1, 2015; and (c) determined and notified the increase in capital gains tax of KRW 1,943,587,030 (including additional tax) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the actual acquisition value of land is unclear.

On December 30, 2015, the Plaintiff lodged an appeal to the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on March 16, 2016.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 3, 4, 5, 15, Eul evidence 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(1) In the calculation of gains on transfer of land, the acquisition value shall be the actual transaction value incurred in the acquisition of the relevant assets. However, where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition, the acquisition value shall be the transaction example value, appraisal value or conversion value as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Article 97(1)1 of the Income Tax Act); and where it is impossible to recognize or confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of the relevant assets by the account books or other evidentiary documents due to the reasons prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment may make a decision or rectification by means of the estimated investigation

Accordingly, Article 176 (2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the acquisition value of land shall be calculated by applying the method of the standard market price in sequential order, (1) transaction example (where there are transaction examples of assets identical or similar to the relevant assets within three months before or after the date of acquisition), (2) appraisal value (in cases where there are appraisal values appraised by at least two appraisal business entities with respect to the relevant assets within three months before or after the date of acquisition, the average amount of such appraisal values), (3) conversion value (the actual transaction price, transaction example value, and appraisal value at the time of transfer x the standard market price at the time of acquisition / the standard

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case, which immediately applied the conversion price without undergoing sufficient research and effort to apply the transaction example or the appraisal price, shall be revoked, in light of the sales contract (No. 1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 1) with respect to the land, etc., as well as the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition, in light of the issue ① and the sales contract for the land.

For the reasons indicated below, the issue ①, and ② the case where the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition of land is not verifiable, and there is no transaction example or appraisal value within three months before and after the acquisition date. Thus, the instant disposition taken by calculating the acquisition value with the conversion value is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion of the error is without merit.

㈎ 취득 당시의 실지거래가액을 확인할 수 없다.

The transfer margin is calculated by deducting necessary expenses, such as acquisition value, from the transfer price. The acquisition price is based on the actual transaction price, and the conversion price can be applied to cases where it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction price. Thus, in order to calculate the transfer margin by applying the conversion price, etc., the tax authority must prove that the actual transaction price falls under cases where it is impossible to verify the actual transaction price: Provided, That in light of the fact that the tax authority, which is not a party to a transaction, has substantial difficulty in proving it, and that there is room to secure evidence more easily, on the other hand, a taxpayer who is a party to a transaction, is not obliged to submit the evidence for lack of justifiable grounds or to prove that the taxpayer has no choice but to accept that there is no other special circumstance, even if the credibility of the submitted evidence is difficult to trust in light of the general transaction practices, etc., if it is difficult to confirm the actual transaction price at the

In this case, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff by asserting that the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition of land can be confirmed is the key issue ①, ② Part II of the sales contract (Evidence No. 1, 2, A), Part II of the above sales contract (Evidence No. 6-2, A), Part II of the appraisal document (Evidence No. 6-1, 2 of the above sales contract), Part II of the confirmation document (Evidence No. 7) and the answer document (Evidence No. 8 of the above), and the testimony at this court ofCC. In addition, the confirmation document, the answer document and the legal testimony ofCC are the contents of the statement at the time of the acquisition, and it is difficult to easily believe, unless there is any objective evidence to support its credibility, and ultimately, how to see the above sales contract No. 2 and the appraisal document.

Part II of the above sales contract provides that the Plaintiff shall pay 3,40,000,000 won (a down payment of 3.4 billion won on the date of the contract, an intermediate payment of 1.5 billion won on December 10, 1987, an intermediate payment of 1.5 billion won on December 31, 1987, and an outstanding amount of 1.573 billion won on December 31, 1987) the key land BBB corporation from D on November 16, 1987, with the purchase price of 2.237 billion won (2,00,000 won on the date of the contract, an intermediate payment of 1.0 billion won on December 10, 1987, and the balance of 1.5 billion won on December 31, 1987, and each of the above intermediate payment of 2,500,000 won on each of the intermediate payment dates.)

The above appraisal statement is the result of the appraisal that the plaintiff personally requested to EE Document Appraisal Board, and the appraiser FF expressed that the two copies of the above sales contract are presumed to have been prepared on the basis of 1987 compared to the documents collected by him in his own (based on the market price of real estate in 1991). The authenticity of the above comparison statement is not clear, and it is not clear whether or not the authenticity of the above comparison statement is made. The above comparison statement is observed that the above comparison document is lacking in yellowization in Chapter 2 of the above comparison contract, but it is observed in consideration of the changes in the state of storage and environment, etc., but it is observed in Chapter 2 of the above sales contract / Part 365 nn of the appraisal contract, but it is presumed that there is no accumulated method of appraisal / time to prepare it is presumed to be due to the pollution of the appraisal object or the contact with other documents.

In general, even if a paper document has been kept in a private possession for a period of 30 years or more, the original copy of the above copy of the sales contract is insufficient to be yellow, as referred to in the above appraisal statement, as shown in the above appraisal statement. Although the appraiser, in comparison with a substitute document, considering the storage condition of the document and the changes in the environment, etc., he/she presented his/her opinion that similar characteristics are observed in terms of the color, glag and pollution level, natural features of the pen, and personality color of humanism. In addition, he/she also presented his/her opinion that the light reaction by a survey conducted by a non-nick line of 365 n'n' is presumed to be caused by the pollution of the appraisal product or by the contact with other documents. In addition, if the above part 2 of the sales contract was contaminated or contacted with other documents, it is difficult to believe the contents of the appraisal document as it is, in light of the fact that the above documents have been preserved for a long time.

Furthermore, on June 11, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased a total of KRW 5,650,000,000 from the Defendant’s investigator, and ② purchased a total of KRW 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for the original contract, but did not prepare and deliver a confirmation document (No. 3) stating that “I would lose the original contract and have been in custody,” and then find the original as evidence, and submitted it to the Tax Tribunal. In addition, even if I did not memory the location of the original to the extent that I could not find it time, I did not keep the original separately from the original, and did not explain the circumstances leading up to finding the original. The Plaintiff, as seen thereafter, did not appear to have been 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00.

더욱이 쟁점①, ②토지의 ㎡당 개별공시지가는 취득 당시 2,556원(쟁점①토지), 2,191원(쟁점②토지)에서 2004년 당시 각 7,440원, 양도 당시 18,800원(쟁점①토지 중 산47 임야), 22,400원(쟁점①토지 중 산49 임야), 21,400원(쟁점②토지)로 각 상승하였고, 쟁점①, ②토지를 공동담보로 제공받기 위해 제일은행의 의뢰로 한국감정원이 2004. 5. 20. 기준으로 감정평가한 가액이 ㎡당 18,000원인데(을 제2, 6호증), 원고의 주장에 의하면 쟁점①, ②토지를 ㎡당 19,050원(≒ 56억 5,000만 원 ÷ 296,530㎡)에 취득하여 ㎡당 약 37,000원 내지 44,000원에 매도하였다는 것이어서, 원고가 주장하는 1988. 1. 5. 당시의 취득가액(㎡당 19,050원)이 그로부터 약 16년이 지난 2004. 5. 20. 기준 감정평가액(㎡당 18,000원)보다도 높을 뿐만 아니라, 개별공시지가의 상승비율에 비추어 보더라도 원고가 주장하는 위 취득가액은 터무니없는 고액이므로, 원고는 위와 같은 고액에 쟁점①, ②토지를 매수할 수밖에 없었던 사정을 일응 납득할 수 있을 정도로 해명하여야 한다.

The plaintiff vindicates to the effect that "GG (DD is a person in a de facto marital relationship with the headG) has a friendly relationship with the plaintiff while operating multiple enterprises, and there was no money transaction with the plaintiff, and there was also a mutual relationship with the business relationship, ② it is necessary to sell the land, ② it is necessary for the plaintiff to sell the land before the issue, ② the issue ①, ② the situation where the plaintiff purchased the land in the vicinity, ② the situation where he purchased the land in the vicinity, ② the situation where he purchased the land in the vicinity, ② the value of investment due to the development of the land was high, and so he purchased it." However, the issue was not only the one where he operated a separate business with the headG, ② the plaintiff already purchased the land in the vicinity of the land, ② the situation where the plaintiff had no friendly relationship with the headG, or was related to the money transaction with each other, and thus it is difficult to understand that he did not have any special circumstances to the extent that he did not have any specific purpose to purchase the land for profit-making purposes, ② even if he did not have any special circumstances to explain it.

㈏ 환산가액을 적용한 것은 적법하다.

The plaintiff acquired the land (1) and (2) on January 5, 198, and even if the tax authority has so long since the time of acquisition, it is not practically easy to find the transaction case or appraisal value at the time of acquisition. However, even though this court decided to confirm whether the defendant's litigation performer had the transaction case or appraisal value at the time of acquisition, the defendant's litigation performer cannot find such case. However, in light of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments in this case, the defendant's answer is just in light of all the circumstances, and there is no ground to see that there was the transaction case or appraisal value at the time of acquisition. Thus, the defendant's calculation of acquisition value at the conversion price should be made by comprehensively considering the above circumstances, and it is correct to evaluate it lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.