Whether it is possible to determine the actual acquisition price and estimation of land

Since the actual acquisition value of the transferred land appears to be confirmed by the passbook deposit certificate, and the cost following the change of land form and quality is confirmed, it is legitimate to determine it as the actual transaction value, not the estimation decision

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 398,698,670 for the Plaintiff on June 13, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

가. 원고는 1998.6.16.○○시 ○○면 ○○리 산23-1임야 10,017㎡(이하'이 사건 토지'라고 한다)를 취득하였다가 2006.12.27.☐☐금속공업(주)에 양도하였고, 2007.3.26.이 사건 토지 양도와 관련하여 양도가액 21억 원, 취득가액 15억 원, 기타필요경비 567,468,650원으로 실지거래가액에 의해 양도차익을 산정하여 2007년 과세연도 양도소득세 3,264,560원을 예정신고・납부하였다.

B. As a result of the tax investigation on the transfer tax of the instant land, the head of △△△ Regional Tax Office: (a) deemed that the instant land transaction constituted real estate sale and purchase business on the grounds that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land on May 30, 2008 and conducted development activities, such as change of form and quality, etc. after the Plaintiff acquired the instant land; and (b) deemed that KRW 348 million,000,000,000, which

C. On May 31, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a final return and paid the global income tax of KRW 640,710 (including capital gains tax of KRW 3,264,560) for the transfer of the instant land as total income of KRW 2.1 billion and necessary expenses of KRW 2.67 billion (including the above acquisition value of KRW 1.5 billion) in 2007.

D. On June 13, 2008, the Defendant recognized the above KRW 348 million among the acquisition value of the above KRW 1.5 billion as necessary expenses, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the global income tax of KRW 398,698,670 for the year 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on August 18, 2008, but filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on February 9, 2009 on June 22, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 3, Evidence Nos. 4-2, Evidence No. 7, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Although the acquisition value of the instant land was KRW 1.5 billion, the instant disposition that deemed necessary as the necessary expense is unlawful.

2) Even if there is no documentary evidence as to the acquisition value of the instant land or an essential part is incomplete, the tax base should be determined by estimation. Thus, the instant disposition made by the method of the on-site investigation is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether acquisition value is 1.5 billion won or not

In light of the following: (a) Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 3, 3, 6, and 7’s each statement (including each number B), and 1,50 billion won for the real transaction of the instant land; (b) the Plaintiff asserts that the purchase price is KRW 1.5 billion for the remainder of KRW 650,000,000 for the contract; and (c) the remaining KRW 18,000,000 for the contract amount of KRW 1,50,000 for the remainder of KRW 300,00,000 for the real transaction of KRW 1,500,000,000 for KRW 1,50,000 for the real transaction of the instant land; and (d) the Plaintiff’s purchase price is KRW 1,30,000,000 for the real transaction of KRW 1,50,000,000 for the real transaction of the instant land; and (b) there is no reason to believe that the actual transaction price is KRW 1,50000,00.

2) Whether the decision was estimated or not

In principle, the tax base and tax amount of global income tax shall be determined by the actual amount revealed by the method of the on-site investigation, and it shall be exceptionally permitted only when there is no taxpayer’s account books or documentary evidence or any other material part is insufficient or false and there is no other way for the tax authorities to disclose the actual amount of income. Thus, even if some of the books or documentary evidence kept and kept by the taxpayer includes false information, if it is obvious that all of the remainder of the books or documentary evidence are consistent with facts and it can be calculated based on this, the tax base and tax amount shall not be determined by the method of the on-site investigation and shall not be determined by the method of the on-site investigation, and the reason that the taxpayer wants to investigate and determine by the method of estimation cannot be deemed as satisfying the requirements for the on-site investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu6809, Jan. 26, 196; 97Nu20304, Jan. 15, 199).

According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 3, 3 and 9, the defendant recognized the acquisition value of the land of this case as the necessary expense amount of KRW 550 million, the replacement afforestation cost of KRW 9,928,650, the acquisition and registration tax amount of KRW 7,540,00, and KRW 348,000,000, total of KRW 915,468,650, and the acquisition value of the land of this case recognized by the defendant as the necessary expense. As seen above, since the acquisition value of the land of this case cannot be deemed to be remarkably unreasonable, the disposition of this case is lawful, and it cannot be viewed as an exceptional case that can be calculated by the estimation investigation method. This part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3.In conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.