early 208west3203 ( October 22, 2008)

Conversion acquisition value and propriety of the disposition in this case as acquisition value for the stamp contract

It is insufficient to prove that the approval certificate contract which the tax authority uses as the basis for calculating the acquisition value is prepared differently from the actual documents, and it is not sufficient to recognize it. Therefore, it is presumed that the contract which is approved by the head of the Si/Gun is prepared in accordance with the

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On March 5, 2008, the Defendant revoked the portion exceeding KRW 50,782,231 in the imposition disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 170,420,480 against the Plaintiff on March 5, 200.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 15, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired 118 mar, 147-3 147-3 mar, 364 mar, 147-8 mar, and 147-8 2,950 mar, and 233 mar (hereinafter referred to as “land within the above 3mar mar” in the land speculation area, and transferred 18,340,970 mar to the Defendant on April 21, 2005, and reported and paid capital gains tax to the Defendant.

B. As a result of the audit of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, it was pointed out that the Plaintiff calculated the acquisition value as KRW 491,667,820 based on the conversion price in calculating the above capital gains tax, but based on the actual transaction price. Accordingly, the Defendant deemed the sales value of KRW 122,00,000, and KRW 00, which was prepared at the time of the purchase of the instant land as acquisition price on March 5, 2008 and additionally imposed capital gains tax of KRW 170,420,480 on the Plaintiff for the year 2005.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-3, Eul evidence No. 3-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 4-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The land of this case was title trust on this ○, which was purchased on January 26, 1994, and was transferred on March 19, 200 and registered on March 19, 200, and the approval seal contract was written in the process. It was erroneous that the defendant deemed the purchase price of the land of this case as the acquisition price of the land of this case, because it cannot be confirmed the actual transaction price at the time of acquiring the land of this case on January 1, 1994 because the conversion price of the land of this case was 279,426,151 won as of January 1, 1994, and the amount exceeds the above amount is 50,782,231 won when calculating the transfer income tax to be additionally paid on this basis. Thus, the part of this case's disposition in excess of the above amount is unlawful.

(b) relevant statutes;

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act [Transfer Value]

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income)

C Judgment

Unless there are special circumstances, the seal of approval affixed by the parties to a transaction, which is prepared by the parties to the transaction, shall be presumed to have been prepared in accordance with the sales contract between the parties, and the fact that the contract was prepared differently from the actual ones shall be proved by the claimant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2353, Apr. 9, 1993).

Therefore, for the plaintiff's assertion to be justified, the above approval seal contract, which the defendant used as the basis for calculating the acquisition value, shall be proved to have been prepared differently from the actual ones as the plaintiff's assertion. However, the above approval seal contract, which is composed of Gap's evidence 3, Gap's evidence 4-1 through 3, Gap's evidence 5-1, Gap's evidence 5-2, Gap's evidence 6-1 through 3, Gap's evidence 7-1 through 4, Gap's evidence 7-1, and 8-2 are insufficient to recognize the above facts, and there is no other evidence to prove it. Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate to consider the amount stated in the above approval seal contract as the acquisition value and calculate the transfer income tax of the land

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.