Whether the contract acquired from the transferee is authentic

The tax authority's disposition of imposing transfer income tax on the basis of the transferee's insufficient proof that the transferee claims the transfer value of the sales right of this case for which the claimant scheduled transfer income tax return is illegal.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 30,83,140 and education tax of KRW 3,088,310 against the Plaintiff on October 17, 2005 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Summary of disposition;

A. On March 28, 200, the Plaintiff and ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. paid KRW 101,026,00 as the down payment after having sold KRW 105,131,00 with KRW 210,00,00 in Seoul ○○○○○○-dong, 104, 210,00, and then transferred the right to sell the apartment on the same day (hereinafter referred to as “right to sell the apartment in this case”) to ○○○○, and paid KRW 5,026,00 as the transfer income tax for March 31, 200 with KRW 105,026,00,000, and the transfer income tax for KRW 4,000,000.

B. However, as a result of the investigation of transfer income tax on the sales right of this case, the Defendant confirmed that the transfer value of the sales right of this case was KRW 146,026,00 and that the transfer margin was KRW 45 million, and issued the instant disposition imposing KRW 30,883,140 and KRW 3,08,310 on October 17, 2005 by revising the Plaintiff’s tax base and tax amount of transfer income for the year 2000.

Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The transfer value of the instant sales right transferred by the Plaintiff to ○○ is KRW 105,026,00, and the transfer difference is more than KRW 4,500,000, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff received the transfer margin of KRW 45 million directly from ○○, the buyer, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff took profits from the Plaintiff’s direct receipt of the transfer margin of KRW 45 million. However, in light of the circumstances such as there was no seal affixed by the Plaintiff and another person’s personal seal affixed on the Plaintiff’s name, the instant disposition was unlawful for deeming the Plaintiff to have obtained the transfer margin of KRW 45,00,00,00 on the ground of the sales contract of ○○○○○-si, without credibility in light of the circumstances such as

B. Determination

(1) Generally, since the burden of proof on the facts of taxation requirements in a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition of imposing tax, the transfer value or gains on transfer should be proved by the taxation authority in principle.

(2) In light of the following facts: (a) 00 U.S.C. 1 and 4 of the Plaintiff’s 000 No. 1 and No. 5 of the Plaintiff’s 2’s 0-C. 6-C. 1 and the Plaintiff’s 0-C. 6-C. 1 and the Plaintiff’s 0-C. 0-C. 6-C. 1 and the Plaintiff’s 0-C. 6-C. 6-C. 1 and the Plaintiff’s 0-C. 6-C. 1 and the Plaintiff’s 0-C. 6-C. 1 and the Plaintiff’s 0-C. 6-C. 1 and the Plaintiff’s 0-C. 6-C. 1 and the Plaintiff’s 0-C. 6-C. 1 and the Plaintiff’s 6-C. 3-C. 1 and 4-C.

(3) Ultimately, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the Plaintiff, who transferred the instant sales right to ○○○○, KRW 146,026,00,000, obtained gains on transfer of KRW 45 million, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.