The transfer value of the instant real estate is 625 million won.

Since both the details of the Plaintiff’s return on the instant real estate ①, a certified copy of the register, and a sales contract are entered as 625 million won, the transfer value of the instant real estate is 625 million won and cannot be deemed as 480 million won asserted by the Plaintiff.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

2019Guhap393 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

AA

Defendant, (P) Appellants

KK Head of the tax office

August 23, 2019

September 27, 2019

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 20,676,495, additional tax on negligent tax returns of KRW 4,181,480, additional tax on negligent tax returns of KRW 5,936,364 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Transfer of the instant real estate and payment of capital gains tax

1) On July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the FFdong 135, and the 625,000,000 GG (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Z, and the transfer value on September 30, 2014.

625,00,000 won and 230,907 capital gains tax were paid by scheduled return.

2) On October 10, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred 258,685,142 HHNom Bank to ZZ on 135,685,142, the FFdong 135,7, and did not add 6,348,459 won, which is the transfer income amount of the instant real estate, to Z, and filed a return on November 24, 2017 with the transfer income tax of 258,685,142 won, with the transfer value of 258,685,142 won, but did not pay the total amount of paid tax.

B. Plaintiff’s request for correction and Defendant’s ex officio revocation

1) On March 1, 2018, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax for the year 2014 as KRW 30,794,330 by aggregating the transfer income amount of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and did not separately notify the Plaintiff of the pre-announcement of taxation.

2) On May 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a claim for rectification to the effect that the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was conducted by fraud. The actual transfer value of the instant real estate was not KRW 625,00,000, but KRW 480,000,00, the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for rectification on the ground that there was no objective evidence regarding the transfer value of the instant real estate on July 13, 2018.

3) The Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff did not notify the Plaintiff of the pre-announcement of taxation while determining and notifying the transfer income tax attributed to March 1, 2018, and that the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the pre-announcement of taxation. The transfer income tax as of March 1, 2018 above.

The decision and notification were revoked ex officio.

C. Disposition of this case

The defendant, upon receipt of a prior notice of taxation on August 23, 2018, shall revert to the plaintiff in October 1, 2018 on October 1, 2018.

The Do income tax is the same as the tax initially notified: 20,676,495 won (=20,907,402 won -230,907 won); additional tax on negligent tax returns 4,181,480 won; additional tax on negligent tax payments 5,936,364 won

30,794,30 won was re-determined and notified (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

D. Filing an administrative appeal

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 10, 2018, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on February 11, 2019.

Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 5 through Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings (including any number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Although the sales contract prepared by the Plaintiff while selling the instant real estate to the Z, the purchase price of which is KRW 625,000,000 is stipulated in the sales contract, in fact, the Z is stipulated in the BB1 Dong community credit cooperatives.

Only 480,000,000 won shall be succeeded to the obligation to be owed to him, he did not have received the down payment of 30,000,000 won and the remainder of 115,00,000 won as stated in the above sales contract separately from the Z.

2) Therefore, even though the transfer value of the instant real estate was KRW 480,000,00, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on the premise that the transfer value of the instant real estate was KRW 625,000,000, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the transfer value of the instant real estate is recognized as 625,00,00 in light of the aforementioned facts, the aforementioned evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 8 through Eul Nos. 11, the testimony of the witness Z, and the testimony of the court in the course of the financial transaction information meeting against Busan Bank. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the premise that the transfer value of the instant real estate is 480,000,000 won is without merit.

1) A loan of KRW 480,00,000 on a sales contract attached to the Plaintiff’s report on the transfer income tax on the instant real estate shall be succeeded (one-dong branch in the Saemaul Depository), and a down payment shall be made under the status of the Plaintiff.

30,000,000 won is paid and received at the time of a contract, and the balance of 115,000,000 won is stated as KRW 625,000 in total, and the purchase price is 625,00,000 in the seller’s column. The Plaintiff’s seal is affixed on the seller’s column, and the buyer’s seal is affixed on the buyer’s column. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the above sales contract was forged or that the actual purchase price is KRW 480,000,000 in total, not KRW 625,000 in total.

2) On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted a preliminary return of capital gains tax to the Defendant on the date of acquisition of the instant real estate on October 16, 2009, the date of transfer is July 31, 2014, the transfer value is KRW 625,00,000, the transfer value is KRW 236,501,60, the capital expenditure as other necessary expenses is KRW 236,501,60, the transfer income amount is KRW 6,348,459, and the tax amount to be paid is KRW 380,90,907, respectively, and the said preliminary return of capital gains tax is signed by the Plaintiff and the Kim Young, the tax agent.

3) The Z which purchased the instant real estate on May 16, 2018, the third party of the instant real estate on May 16, 2018

On July 23, 2018, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax by stating the acquisition value of the instant real estate in KRW 625,000,000, the transfer value originally reported by the Plaintiff.

4) According to Article 114(5) of the Income Tax Act, the tax authority determines the capital gains tax base by estimating the transaction value recorded in the register as the actual transaction value.

The trading value of the real estate in this case is KRW 625,00,000.

5) The Plaintiff asserts that there was no separate payment of KRW 30,000,000 as the down payment and the remainder 115,000,000,000 from the Z except where the Z takes over the collateral security obligation against the ZB1 and community credit cooperatives established in the instant real estate. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept in light of the following points.

A) The witness Z was aware that the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from the Plaintiff in total in KRW 625,00,000 from the purchase price, and provided an explanation of the detailed payment method of the purchase price.

At the same time, 5,00,000 won was deducted from the deposit for long-term guests, and the remaining 140,000,000 won was stated that the Plaintiff was paid to the Plaintiff as a check. At the time, the checks (No. 11) paid to the Plaintiff were presented.

B) According to the result of this court’s extension of financial transaction information with the Busan Bank, KRW 20,00,000, among the checks submitted by the witness Z in a photograph, shall be deemed as endorsement by the upper part, who is the employee of the office of the branch of the certified judicial scrivener who performed the registration of the instant real estate by proxy, and the check equivalent to KRW 100,000,000 is confirmed as having been directly endorsed by the Plaintiff and used as the deposit.

C) On April 30, 2008, as to the instant real estate, the procedure for compulsory auction was initiated for a compulsory auction for real estate auction case No. 2008 Kataeng 18009 on April 30, 2008, and the said real estate was on June 30, 2008.

Associate 1,182,117,610 won was appraised and assessed twice, and thereafter, the Plaintiff acquired the said real estate by winning the contract on September 17, 2009. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff entered KRW 236,50,600 as capital expenditure upon reporting the transfer income tax of the instant real estate. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to the ZE as KRW 486,480,60 (= KRW 449,980,00 + KRW 236,50,600 + KRW 449,980,000). Moreover, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to the ZE is difficult to accept, contrary to the empirical rule, against the empirical rule.

3. Conclusion

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

this decision is rendered.